Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

TYNE IMPROVEMENT BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Gipsy Children, Dudley

Mr. Norman Dodds: asked the Minister of Education how many children were attending local schools from the gipsy encampment at Dudley, Worcestershire, before the families and their caravan homes were evicted on 27th March; and how many have since found places in schools within the boundaries of the Brierley Hill local authority.

The Minister of Education (Miss Florence Horsbrugh): I am informed that no children from this gipsy encampment attended schools in Dudley, or Brierley Hill.

Mr. Dodds: Is the right hon. Lady not aware that, at the annual conference of the National Union of Women Teachers last week at Harrogate, a resolution was passed saying that something should be done about having these children registered and sent to school? Is she not further aware that there are many districts where they were going to school but where they have now been driven out of built-up areas into the woods and are to get no education at all?

Miss Horsbrugh: The fact that they have moved on is nothing to do with me or with the local authority. The encampment at Dudley was visited regularly by school attendance officers in order to try to induce parents to send the children to school, but, by the time it had been arranged that they should be obliged to send them to school, they had moved on.

Mr. Dodds: Is not that dreadful information when it is a fact that it was the police who drove them out? Where they had no horses to pull the caravans, the police got between the shafts and pulled them away from one site into another area. The Minister is incorrect.

Miss Horsbrugh: Anyhow, all I can say is that they moved.

Mr. Dodds: Of course they moved.

Miss Horsbrugh: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am not responsible for how they moved or whether they were moved by the police or anybody else. I was looking to the fact of whether the children were there and whether we could get them into school.

Mr. George Wigg: Is the right hon. Lady aware that these people were treated with the utmost consideration by the authorities of Dudley, but that they constituted an intolerable public nuisance? As my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) is so solicitous for their welfare, would he kindly issue an invitation and arrange for their transport to Dartford?

Miss Horsbrugh: I think the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that it is not my work as Minister of Education to deal with difficulties between two hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Dodds: In view of the incorrect information given on this subject, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

General Certificate Examination

Mr. F. J. Erroll: asked the Minister of Education whether she has yet received a report from the Secondary School Examinations Council on the new examination system; and whether she will make a statement on the age limit for the general certificate of education.

Miss Horsbrugh: Yes, Sir. I have decided that, with effect from next year, a pupil shall not be debarred from taking the examination for the general certificate of education before the age of 16 if the head of his school is satisfied that it is educationally right for him to do so and that he is fully up to the required standard. Normally the examination will not be taken before the age of 16.
I have always felt that age alone should not debar a pupil from taking this examination. On taking office I deferred any decision to make a change, because I knew that the Secondary School Examinations Council had of their own initiative undertaken to review the existing arrangements in the light of experience gained since the new system was introduced.
I have now received their Report, which I am glad to say is unanimous. Their main recommendation is that, while the existing age limit should be retained, heads of schools should have full discretion to enter pupils at an earlier age under certain specified conditions. This, and their proposal that a distinction mark should be available for candidates at the advanced level, seem to me eminently sensible, and I am, therefore, informing the Council that I shall give effect to both their recommendations. I shall publish their Report in the next few days.

Mr. Erroll: Is the Minister aware that this further step to freedom for the able will be greeted with great satisfaction? Can she say whether the same or similar facilities will be extended to the boys and girls in secondary modern schools?

Miss Horsbrugh: Yes. This will, of course, affect girls or boys in any schools, because the head of the school will be able to say that he considers that a particular pupil is able to take the examination at an earlier age than 16 and that it will be educationally good for him to do so. It affects all the schools equally.

Mr. Frederick Peart: The Minister mentioned specified conditions. Will she elaborate on that?

Miss Horsbrugh: Yes—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Thomas.

Ely School, Cardiff (Repairs)

Mr. George Thomas: asked the Minister of Education whether she is aware of the dangerous condition of the school yard and approaches of the Howell Dda School, Ely, Cardiff; and whether she has given the local education authority permission for the necessary expenditure to improve these conditions.

Miss Horsbrugh: I know that the yard and approaches to this school are not in a wholly satisfactory condition, but I am not aware that they are dangerous. Expenditure by the local education authority on the proper maintenance of them does not require my approval.

Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that this yard is definitely dangerous and that there are considerable complaints from the parents in the area? Will she satisfy herself that there is no danger to the well-being of the children attending the school due to the lack of finance to get on with those repairs?

Miss Horsbrugh: No, there is no point in suggesting that it is lack of finance which prevents getting on with the repairs. The local authority can have the finance and knows that it has the finance. The point should be brought to the notice of the local authority. It is their responsibility to see that the yard is kept in a proper condition.

Intelligence Tests (Coaching)

Mr. Christopher Hollis: asked the Minister of Education what advice her expert advisers have given to local educational authorities on intelligence tests for grammar school entrants and methods of guarding against the falsification of those tests by coaching.

Miss Horsbrugh: As I indicated in the reply I gave on 6th March to the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), I should prefer to leave local education authorities to work out methods for determining the most suitable secondary education for each child. It has been suggested to some authorities who have informally sought advice that a limited amount of practice and coaching for intelligence tests might be allowed in schools.

Mr. Holliss: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while nobody wishes to interfere with the freedom of the local authorities in this matter, it is simply a question, as indeed my right hon. Friend indicated, that certain local authorities would welcome advice because they were first told that coaching was not possible and it now turns out that in some cases it is possible; and they themselves are very anxious for some guidance as to how they can get round that difficulty?

Miss Horsbrugh: As I have said, if local authorities have asked for suggestions, we have suggested that a limited amount of practice and coaching for the intelligence tests might be allowed in schools, but the responsibility for the decision rests with the local authorities.

Mr. Ede: Can the Minister say what are the qualifications of her expert advisers on this matter, and can they pass intelligence tests?

Miss Horsbrugh: I think that the guidance I have had has been from Her Majesty's Inspectors.

Secondary School Places

Mr. Stephen Swingler: asked the Minister of Education her present estimates of the numbers of children reaching secondary school age in 1953 and 1954 for whom there will be no places in secondary schools, in England and Wales and in Staffordshire, respectively.

Miss Horsbrugh: I have no reason to suppose that there will be any reduction in Staffordshire or elsewhere in the proportion of the children reaching secondary school age who will be admitted to secondary schools in 1953 and 1954.

Mr. Swingler: Has not the Minister warned local authorities that some children will have to stay on for a certain period at primary schools owing to the lack of places due to the cut in the building programme, and what is the meaning of that warning if in fact there are to be no children for whom places cannot be found in secondary schools?

Miss Horsbrugh: Yes, but the hon. Member asked me about the years 1953 and 1954. The arrangements made for the change in certain areas so that they can continue education in the primary school buildings will come into force after 1956.

Proposed Secondary School, Maryport

Mr. Peart: asked the Minister of Education if she will reconsider her decision to defer the building of the proposed new secondary school at Maryport, Cumberland, in view of the special need to extend educational facilities in the area of West Cumberland.

Miss Horsbrugh: No, Sir. Though desirable, this project is in my opinion less urgent than those included in the revised 1952–53 building programme.

Mr. Peart: In view of the difficulties of this area, of which I am sure the right hon. Lady is aware in view of the representations made, will she look at this matter again and reconsider it if the local authority makes further approaches?

Miss Horsbrugh: Yes, but this building would be to relieve overcrowding and to permit re-organisation. It would not be for the first priority purpose, which is to provide places for the extra school population, and I am following the policy of my predecessor, laid down five years ago, that building should not be to relieve overcrowding and to permit re-organisation. I might think it was a pity that that decision was taken but now I feel, as I said in the circular on building, that I cannot now make the change, and I must continue the policy which was decided by the previous Government.

Mr. Peart: The right hon. Lady will recollect that if my right hon. Friend had been Minister this project would have gone ahead because, in a letter to the local authority, the right hon. Lady herself declares that she is unable to authorise the carrying on of this project.

Miss Horsbrugh: I am unable to authorise it because I am carrying on the policy laid down by my predecessor that building should not at present be for the relief of overcrowding and to permit re-organisation. I should like not to carry on that policy for any length of time; I should like to be able to allow building to deal with overcrowding and to permit re-organisation, but at present I cannot. I shall do it as soon as I possibly can.

Mr. Peart: In view of the fact that this is the result of Circular 245, I give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Kingsway School, Goole

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Minister of Education when the new Kingsway School at Goole is to be opened.

Miss Horsbrugh: Probably after the Whitsun holiday.

Mr. Jeger: Does the Minister agree that it will greatly assist the effective working of this school if the children for whom it is intended were allowed access to the school? If so, will she make representations to whoever is running the Ministry of Transport at the moment to


get sanction for a footbridge to be built across the railway which at present separates this school from the housing estate it is intended to serve?

Miss Horsbrugh: The subject of a bridge is a different matter, but if the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question I will answer it. His Question asks when the school will be opened, and I have given him an answer.

Swimming Instruction, Warwickshire

Miss Elaine Burton: asked the Minister of Education whether she is aware that the Warwickshire Education Committee has decided to cut out completely swimming instruction in schools in response to her Circular 242; and if, as swimming instruction is essential for both health and safety reasons, she will inform the Committee that this part of the essential fabric of the education service must be retained.

Miss Horsbrugh: I am aware of the action proposed by Warwickshire. While I agree that instruction in swimming is very desirable, I should not regard myself as justified in interfering with the authorities' discretion in this matter.

Miss Burton: I do not know if this supplementary question is addressed to one swimmer from another, but might I ask the right hon. Lady if she realises that swimming is the one sport which does develop every part of the body, and for safety reasons would she not agree that every child should be taught to swim, unless he or she is medically unfit?

Miss Horsbrugh: I should like to remind the hon. Lady that in a great many areas there are opportunities for children to learn to swim outside school hours and outside school arrangements, and I think that we should encourage that as much as possible.

Voluntary Schools

Mr. L. M. Lever: asked the Minister of Education if she is now in a position to make a statement about the proposals for financial assistance to the voluntary schools.

Miss Horsbrugh: I would refer to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. K. Thompson), on 31st March.

Mr. Lever: While appreciating the fact that the Minister is anxious to assist voluntary schools as much as possible, can I ask her to realise that this is a very urgent matter now, and will she take steps to expedite the proposals in view of the grave financial circumstances of the voluntary schools?

Miss Horsbrugh: Yes, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am entirely in favour of that. I have now completed discussions with all those who are interested. As I said in the answer, I hope to bring forward legislative proposals, but I think that the hon. Gentleman will realise that there is not much possibility at present of getting a Bill through the House of Commons in addition to what we are dealing with.

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the delay in dealing with this matter is causing grave difficulties, as many of the voluntary schools are in quite an unfit condition for children to be taught in them, and in view of the fact that agreement had been reached with the late Government, why the delay now?

Miss Horsbrugh: Perhaps the hon. Lady is unaware that no agreement had been reached with all the denominational bodies, the local authorities and the teachers. I have had discussions with many authorities who had had no previous knowledge of what was arranged or that discussions had taken place. As I say, those discussions are now completed but, as she will realise, time must be found for legislative proposals to go through this House, and I think she will agree with me that at the present time the prospect is not very cheerful.

Mr. Ede: Will the right hon. Lady consider asking through the usual channels whether legislation in this matter might be facilitated, in view of the great need for such legislation?

Miss Horsbrugh: I will certainly press that these matters may be discussed. But I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that there is other legislation which it is desperately necessary to get through, and the quicker that goes through the quicker we can deal with the other.

New Housing Estates, Leicester

Mr. Barnett Janner: asked the Minister of Education whether she is aware that, owing to the shortage of school accommodation on the New Parks Estate and on other new housing estates in the city of Leicester, there will have to be classes of some 50 children each; and if she will give permission for hutted accommodation to be used as a temporary measure pending the sanctioning of the original building programme.

Miss Horsbrugh: I am at present considering with the local education authority their allocation for minor capital works in the current financial year. I expect that the authority will be providing some temporary classrooms at schools in the New Parks area and elsewhere.

Mr. Janner: Has the right hon. Lady appreciated the fact that these schools are being asked for in districts where young married people have been housed and where there are young children who have to receive education; and that unless something is done immediately quite a large number of these children will not be able to have school accommodation at all? There will be very large classes and a great social problem is being created owing to the action of the Government in cutting down further accommodation.

Miss Horsbrugh: No, Sir, I do not think it is that. The local education authorities have discretion in the use of their allocation for minor works, which have been increased. I shall encourage them to use up the greater part of the allocation to provide additional classrooms.

Cornwall

Mr. F. H. Hayman: asked the Minister of Education whether she has considered the protest of the Parents' Association of Landewedneck County Primary School, Cornwall, a copy of which has been sent to her, against the proposed reduction of staff; and what action she proposes to take in this matter.

Miss Horsbrugh: Yes, Sir, but I do not think that the circumstances of the case justify my intervention in a matter which is within the discretion of the local education authority.

Mr. Hayman: Is the Minister aware that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) and the local county council have made representations to the local education authority on this matter and that the school is 10 miles from the nearest secondary modern school at Helston? Does not she think these senior children need some special consideration? Will she reconsider the matter?

Miss Horsbrugh: I agree that the hon. Member for St. Ives, in whose constituency the school is situated, has been in touch with the local authority since the middle of March. The decision was that of the local authority, but I can assure the hon. Member, from what I have heard from the local authority and from the hon. Member for St. Ives, that they are looking after the matter, and I think we shall get a satisfactory result.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Jeger.

Mr. G. R. Howard: On a point of order. As this last Question concerns the division which I have the honour to represent, perhaps I may put a supplementary question.

Mr. Speaker: We are making extremely slow progress.

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Education how many all-age primary schools in Cornwall have between 100 and 109 scholars on roll; how many of these have three teachers; and how many four.

Miss Horsbrugh: Eleven, of which five have three, and six have four teachers. These figures relate to January, 1952.

Mr. Hayman: Would the Minister be kind enough to repeat the first part of her answer?

Miss Horsbrugh: It is difficult for a Minister to answer when there is a great deal of noise, however much he or she speaks out. The answer is 11, of which five have three and six have four teachers. These figures relate to January, 1952.

Mr. Hayman: Is the Minister aware that the local education authorities have now laid down that these six schools with four teachers shall have their staffs reduced to three—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]—and does she consider that


a class of 36 children with an age range of three or four years and of both sexes is a satisfactory class unit for a teacher, and will she request all local authorities to see that such classes of over 90 children should have four teachers?

Miss Horsbrugh: Yes, Sir, and I have already asked local authorities to staff up to their full requirements under their quota scheme. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the revised staffing scale of the authorities allows for four teachers to be employed when the roll reaches 105.

Mr. Howard: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the case of one of these schools the matter has been sub judice? She has no doubt seen the resolution I forwarded to her. Is she aware that that is the reason why I have not approached her so far? I thought it only fair to give the county education authority a chance to think again with the man on the spot.

Miss Horsbrugh: I should like to thank my hon. Friend for what he has done. Having been told of the difficulty, I explained that the decision as to the number of teachers was that of the local authority, and I suggested the course, which he has followed, of taking up the matter with the local authority. That he has now done, I believe most successfully.

Engineering Courses

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Education (1) what steps are being taken to provide a modern training for the needs required by the highly skilled engineering craftsmen; and how far provision is being made for a course that will equip men of the future with what they will require at pattern-making, skilled moulding, toolmaker, skilled moulding, toolmark, skilled electrician, or other highly skilled work;
(2) what changes and modification she is considering in the educational courses that are provided for engineering students; what changes are being made to convert the City and Guilds certificates courses into a full technological educational course; and what action is being taken to cater for modern requirements;
(3) what action she is taking now or has in prospect to link up the educational

facilities provided in the industrial localities, schools, works and technical colleges, to provide a National Certificate for the highly skilled engineering craftsmen, and also to provide facilities for a proper technological education.

Miss Horsbrugh: The engineering courses provided in technical colleges are being continuously reviewed and developed, but in general I consider that the present system of craft courses leading to the examinations of the City and Guilds of London Institute and the courses leading to national certificates is meeting the requirements of the engineering industry.
A proposal for a national craft apprenticeship certificate for the engineering trades was considered by the National Advisory Council on Education for Industry and Commerce in consultation with the industry, but was rejected by both sides of the industry.

Mr. Smith: Having had three Questions answered at once, and having noted the complacent attitude of the Minister as revealed in her answer, I propose to leave it there for the time being.

Transport Services

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: asked the Minister of Education whether she is aware that cuts in the transport services for schoolchildren have resulted in children being denied schooling; and if she will give an assurance that she will refuse her sanction to such proposals.

Miss Horsbrugh: No, Sir. My advice to local education authorities in Circular 242 was designed to eliminate unnecessary expenditure on school transport, in particular where free transport was being provided without special justification for children living nearer to school than the distances prescribed in the Education Act, 1944. If the hon. Member has any particular case in mind, I shall be glad to look into it.

Mr. Ralph Morley: asked the Minister of Education the estimated cost in the year 1951 of transport facilities provided for schoolchildren in England and Wales.

Miss Horsbrugh: So far as I can estimate, about £4,750,000.

Mr. Morley: Would the Minister agree that this service was first instituted mainly in order to avoid road accidents to children on their way to and from school, and that now the service has been considerably curtailed by many local authorities many parents are increasingly anxious about the possibility of danger to life and limb for their children on their way to and from school? Would it be practicable or possible to make a grant from the Road Fund to this service in order that local authorities may be more generous in the provision of school buses?

Miss Horsbrugh: As I have already said, the transport regulations for such purposes are laid down in the Act of 1944. At the present moment, the estimate is £4,750,000, and, in 1949, when my predecessor thought the amount was too high and sent a circular to local authorities asking them to cut it down, it was then £2,250,000.

Secondary Technical Schools, Middlesex

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Minister of Education how many secondary technical schools have been declared redundant under the latest plan of the Middlesex County Council; and what action she intends to take in this matter in view of the urgent need for technicians in industry.

Miss Horsbrugh: The proposal of the Middlesex local education authority is to replace ultimately 21 secondary technical schools by the provision of alternative technical courses in other secondary schools. In considering the revised development plan, I will take into account all the relevant factors, including that mentioned by the hon. Member.

Mr. Johnson: Is it not a fact that this will mean a diminution of secondary school places, particularly in technical education, and that this is a scandalous decision, in line with that of the Middlesex County Council? Will the Minister please ask this Tory council to think again about this particular decision they have taken?

Miss Horsbrugh: I am surprised that it should be regarded as such, because, in

a great many cases, it is the arrangement for the building of all new schools that have been multilateral or bi-lateral, and I know that many hon. Members opposite would like these comprehensive schools.
Secondly, it is aimed at providing that these schools do not take up places in the technical colleges, where too much space has been taken up and where other students are not getting all the opportunities they should have; it is not a cutting down of the number of places, but the authority suggesting a reorganisation of the new type of bilateral or multilateral school.

Oral Answers to Questions — U.N.E.S.C.O. EXPENSES (U.K. CONTRIBUTION)

Mr. Anthony Hurd: asked the Minister of Education how much Her Majesty's Government are now contributing to the expenses of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation; and if, having in mind the financial stringency affecting many members of the United Nations, a review is being undertaken of the value of the various activities of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation.

Miss Horsbrugh: The contribution of Her Majesty's Government to the expenses of Unesco for 1952 will be £347,041. The programme and budget of the Organisation is regularly reviewed by its General Conference and by its Executive Board. In this country the activities and expenditure of the Organisation are subjected also to close scrutiny by Government Departments and by the National Commission of Unesco, which advises me upon the work and policy of the Organisation.

Mr. Hurd: Would it not be well to have a special review, in view of the special financial difficulties of many of the contributing nations?

Miss Horsbrugh: There will be a general conference in November, 1952, to determine the budget for the years 1953–54, and we shall certainly take into account the financial difficulty of this country and others.

Oral Answers to Questions — BECHUANALAND (BAMANGWATO TRIBE CHIEFTAINSHIP)

Mr. T. Driberg: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations on what date, and in what form, the news that Seretse Khama had been deposed permanently from the chieftainship designate of the Bamangwato was conveyed to the tribe; whether he is satisfied that the members of the tribe generally are aware of the British constitutional doctrine that the decisions of Governments are not binding on their successors; and what the reaction of the tribe to this decision has been.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. John Foster): A statement identical with that made by myself in this House on Thursday, 27th March, was read out on the same day by the Resident Commissioner at a kgotla in Serowe and by District Commissioners in other places in the Reserve. In addition, copies of the statement have been distributed.
I understand that some hostility was shown at three places in the Reserve, but that elsewhere the news was received without incident, and that the Reserve remains quiet.
I think it unlikely that members of the tribe generally are at all familiar with the more intricate points of United Kingdom constitutional procedure; but I have no doubt that tribal leaders are aware that Governments in the United Kingdom are free to modify decisions taken by their predecessors. The change in policy regarding the return of Tshekedi to the Reserve will, of course, already be common knowledge.

Mr. Driberg: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether he and his noble Friend have been enabled to modify their views at all as a result of their discussions with the delegation from the tribe, and particularly with regard to the point made by the delegation that there has been a complete misunderstanding here of tribal custom and tradition about consultation by the Chief with the tribe before marriage?

Mr. Foster: No, Sir, I am not able to say that, but my noble Friend has seen the delegation, he is considering what they have said, and proposes to see them again at an early date.

Mr. J. Grimond: Cannot the Under-Secretary at least say that he is prepared to keep his mind open on this matter in view of the representations made; and that if he finds it impossible at this time to allow Seretse Khama to return as Chief, that he will at least reconsider this matter, possibly at some suitable time in the future, so that, perhaps, some honourable post in his native land might be found for this man, who after all, as we all agree, has perpetrated no crime and many people think has a right to return?

Mr. Foster: The observations of the hon. Gentleman will be brought to the attention of my noble Friend.

Mr. Julian Snow: Is the Under-Secretary aware that, according to newspaper reports, the Primate of all England will be visiting his noble Friend on this matter, that very few hon. Members of this House indeed have a very good conscience about this sad story; and that an opportunity may arise, following the visit of the Primate, for both major parties in this House to arrive at an honourable settlement in this sad matter?

Mr. Foster: I was not aware of the newspaper report to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and I cannot speak about the consciences of hon. Members.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Lobsters (Exports to France)

Major W. J. Anstruther-Gray: asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of lobsters exported to France during 1951; and whether he can make a statement regarding the future prospects of this trade.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): I regret that the information asked for in the first part of the Question is not available, since lobsters are not separately distinguished in the trade returns. As regards future prospects, my hon. and gallant Friend will now know that, on 12th April, the French authorities invited applications for licences to import crustaceans from other Western European countries, including the United Kingdom.

Major Anstruther-Gray: Could my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that the total volume of this trade will not shrink below the figure of last year?

Mr. Thorneycroft: We are still trying to ascertain the level at which these imports will be allowed.

Mr. Driberg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he told me in this House a few weeks ago that polyps were not separately distinguished in the trade returns, but that he was able subsequently to give me figures—for which I thank him—showing the substantial amount of dollars earned by their export? Perhaps he could do the same for his hon. and gallant Friend?

Mr. Thorneycroft: These are very different types of marine animals.

Mr. I. Mikardo: Walruses and Guinness.

Australian Import Restrictions

Mr. Hurd: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now make a statement on the progress of discussions with Her Majesty's Government in Australia on proposals for modifying the cut in Australian imports of United Kingdom manufactures, particularly textiles, during the present year.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: asked the President of the Board of Trade what results he has achieved from consultation with the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia about the cancellation or refusal of licences for the import of British textiles in general, and Scottish chenille in particular.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The attention of the Australian Government has been drawn to the serious effects of their recently imposed import restrictions for many United Kingdom industries. The difficulties of our textile industries have been particularly stressed. The Australian authorities have not so far found it possible, within the ceiling which they have had to impose on their total imports in order to correct their balance of payments, to do anything to alleviate these difficulties. But I look forward to the opportunity of discussing the whole position with Mr. Menzies when he visits the United Kingdom next month.

Mr. Hurd: May the House take it that Her Majesty's Government will have proposals for arrangements mutually advantageous to Australia and ourselves by the time that Mr. Menzies arrives in this country?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I will certainly raise all the major issues of principle with Mr. Menzies when he comes here.

Mr. Douglas Jay: As the Government have now admitted that they failed to safeguard the interests of the United Kingdom in this matter at the conference, will the right hon. Gentleman now review the whole matter with all the Commonwealth countries concerned at an early date?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I think the right hon. Gentleman is well aware that Her Majesty's Government have admitted nothing of the kind.

Mr. Maitland: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him to take particular care of the rather small, but none the less important, industry of chenille making in Scotland?

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: This is a very serious matter, as I am sure the President of the Board of Trade realises. May I ask him whether Her Majesty's Government will now call a new Commonwealth economic conference to discuss the whole situation arising as a result of these cuts?

Mr. Thorneycroft: That is quite a different question, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put it down on the Order Paper.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: In regard to those portions of imports into Australia which are the subject of existing contracts, has my right hon. Friend taken legal advice whether the action of the Australian Government is legal or not? Will he note that the highest legal opinion taken in Australia is that it was an illegal act by the Australian Government to cancel the existing contracts unilaterally?

Mr. Thorneycroft: My attention has been called to the report to which my hon. Friend refers. Naturally, the question of these contracts is one which is uppermost in our minds, and will be dealt with in the discussions with Mr. Menzies when he comes to this country.

Mr. Jay: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, is he aware that his hon. Friend the Secretary for Overseas Trade told me in answer to a Question that Her Majesty's Government had made no representations to the Australian Government on this point at all?

Mr. Thorneycroft: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at that matter, he will find that my hon. Friend did not refer to the period of the Finance Ministers' Conference. It was a different occasion in respect of a different point.

Mr. F. Blackburn: asked the President of the Board of Trade which industries are affected by the recent Australian import restrictions; and to what extent by volume and value in each case.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: A wide range of industries are affected by the import restrictions. Full details of the restrictions were given in the Board of Trade Journal of 22nd March, and from that list it will be clear which are the industries affected. As the Australian import quotas in the 20 per cent. category are available for any goods within that quota category, and as licences may be used for imports from any source other than the dollar area and

UNITED KINGDOM EXPORTS IN 1951 TO AUSTRALIA


MAIN GROUPS AFFECTED BY IMPORT RESTRICTIONS


—
To all Areas
To Australia
Exports to Australia as percentage of Total Exports



£m.
£m.
Per cent.


United Kingdom total exports
…
…
…
2,580·0
323·9
13


Cotton yarns and manufactures
…
…
…
209·2
39·4
19


Woollen and worsted yarns and manufactures
…
176·8
15·7
9


Apparel
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
46·1
6·5
14


Motor cars
…
…
…
…
…
…
108·2
23·0
26


Motor car vehicle chassis
…
…
…
…
11·0
8·4


Motor cycles
…
…
…
…
…
…
9·3
2·5
27


Tobacco
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
24·5
4·9
20


Rubber manufactures (excluding tyres and tubes)
…
12·7
2·1
17


Earthenware
…
…
…
…
…
…
11·2
2·3
17


China
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
5·4
0·5


Toys
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
6·6
2·1
32


Footwear
…
…
…
…
…
…
13·5
1·8
13


Cutlery
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
2·2
0·7
32


Rayon and silk yarns and manufactures
…
…
64·3
19·3
30


Linen Piece Goods
…
…
…
…
…
14·3
1·5
10


Carpets, woollen
…
…
…
…
…
22·5
10·7
48


Lino and felt base
…
…
…
…
…
8·8
3·1
35


Hard Haberdashery
…
…
…
…
…
4·8
1·1
23


Note.—The Australian quotas are based on Australian imports during the period July, 1950-June, 1951.

Mr. H. Rhodes: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will call a conference of the Export Credits Guarantee Department and representatives of all industries affected by Australian action in order to formulate joint proposals for presentation to Mr. Menzies when he visits this country.

Japan, it is impossible to forecast precisely the effect of the restrictions on particular industries. I will, however, as a general guide and indication of the industries most seriously affected, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table of selected United Kingdom exports in 1951, showing the proportion which went to Australia.

Mr. Frederick Mulley: Is the Minister aware of the special difficulties that have been created in these industries which have made goods specially for the Australian market and which bear, for example, the imprint of an Australian firm and cannot therefore be re-sold elsewhere? Will he give special consideration to that aspect of the matter?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am aware of this difficulty, which is one of those which we have impressed upon the Australian Government.

Following is the table:

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Since the proportion of our exports to Australia insured with the Export Credits Guarantee Department was very small, I doubt whether a conference between the industries affected and that Department would be very useful. But the purpose which the hon. Member has in mind is, I think,


already being served by the frequent discussions which my Department and the Ministry of Supply have had, and are having, with representatives of the interests most seriously affected by the Australian import restrictions. And I can assure him that I am quite clear about the main issues and am looking forward to this opportunity of discussing them with Mr. Menzies.

Mr. Rhodes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a widespread desire among exporters to have such a conference and to receive clear guidance as to what their attitude should be?

Mr. Thorneycroft: If there is any body of manufacturers who are affected by this and who would like to consult with me and my Department, I am always available and at their disposal.

Mr. A. G. Bottomley: Will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to give us a report as a result of the discussions that are going on between the industry and his Department and the Ministry of Supply?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put that question down.

Mr. F. Beswick: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that the real solution for this problem is to have Customs and currency so close that individual balance of payments problems never arise? Will he keep that solution clearly in mind in any discussions he may have?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The point raised by the hon. Member is really very much wider than the Question on the Order Paper.

Anglo-American Council on Productivity

Mr. Erroll: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the future of the Anglo-American Council on Productivity.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I cannot at present add to the statement made by my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in the Easter Adjournment debate on production efficiency in industry.

Mr. Erroll: Will the Minister, nevertheless, ensure that the valuable work done by this Council is not lost in any future arrangement which may be made?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Certainly, Sir. I have that point very much in mind, and I feel that, whatever the future of this Council, it is important that this type of work should be carried on.

Mr. Mikardo: Is the Minister aware that the Council is now issuing reports claiming the credit for all the improvements made in many industries over many years without adducing any evidence to show in any case that the improvement was due to the work of the Council? Does he not think it would be a good idea, before considering this matter further, to have some independent investigation made of the extent to which the reports of the Council have had any practical issue in the day-to-day work of the Ministry?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not think this Council is making claims of that character, and I think we should pay a tribute to the work that has been done by it, which has been of general use to the industries concerned.

American Import Duties

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the text of the recent communication from Her Majesty's Government to the Government of the United States of America in regard to increases in American import duties on British manufactured goods; and how far such increases are in consonance with the provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade of which the United Kingdom is one of the signatory countries.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The Memorandum in question, the text of which I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT, related to applications of particular concern to the United Kingdom under the so-called "Escape Clause" procedure. The applications referred to in the memorandum are still being investigated by the United States Tariff Commission who have not yet made any recommendations on any of them. Accordingly, the second part of the Question does not at present arise.

Mr. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the very substantial volume of opinion in this House that the United Kingdom should consider its position urgently in relation to the General


Agreement on Tariffs and Trade? Would he consider making a statement of the policy of Her Majesty's Government in this matter—such statement to be made in this House as opposed to the other place—as to what that policy will be?

Mr. Thorneycroft: This Question refers to a somewhat narrower point, namely, the action proposed in the United States under the so-called "Escape Clause." Her Majesty's Government thought it proper to make representations on that matter in connection with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. If the hon. Gentleman wants to ask the other question, perhaps he will put it down.

Following is the text of the Memorandum dated April 9, 1952:

APPLICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 7 OF THE TRADE AGREEMENTS EXTENSION ACT

In recent months there has been a most disturbing increase in the number of applications for relief under Section 6 of the Trade Agreements Extension Act of 1951. Among those which directly affect important United Kingdom export trade are those relating to motor bicycles and parts, bicycles and parts, certain chinaware, tobacco pipes and wood screws.

2. These cases, and others which affect the United Kingdom less, are still at the stage of investigation or hearing. Recommendations have not yet been made by the Tariff Commission. It is obviously premature to assume that relief will be granted in the cases now under review but, in the light of the decisions reached in respect of fur felt hats and hatters' fur, there are obviously grounds for anxiety, and it may, therefore, not be too early to bring the following considerations to the attention of the State Department.

3. The United States market has never been an easy one for the goods of other countries. Large as it is, it is extremely well supplied in most cases by domestic producers who pride themselves on being among the most efficient in the world. Since the last war a great deal of effort has been expended, both by the Government of the United Kingdom and indeed by the United States Administration, to persuade exporters in the United Kingdom to cultivate the United States market. It has appeared, both to the United Kingdom and to the United States Governments, that it was essential, for both economic and political reasons, that the dependence of the United Kingdom on external aid should be ended as rapidly as possible. It has long been clear that deplorable restrictions on international trade could be avoided only if the United Kingdom were able greatly to increase its dollar earnings. It has been clear, also, that the power of the United Kingdom to be an effective ally, strong both militarily and economically, was threatened by the difficulty in balancing its external, and particularly its dollar, account.

4. In earning dollars the United Kingdom, more perhaps than any other country, must rely on increasing sales in the United States of manufactured goods in direct competition with United States industry. British manufacturers and exporters, in spite of the temptation of higher profits in easier markets, have responded to the challenge. They have neither sought nor been given assistance which would render "unfair" the competition they offer the United States producers and such success as they have had has been hard won. They are perturbed by the mounting evidence that any marked success in selling their goods in the United States will be countered by applications from United States industry for further protection and the fear that some at least of these applications may be granted. This feeling is not confined to the trades in which applications have already been made, but is very widespread so that it becomes a question whether, should the fears prove to be justified, the United Kingdom effort to pay its way by earning dollars on a fair competitive basis can be maintained. Should it fail, the economic policies of the United States as well as of the United Kingdom would be frustrated, and the ability of the United Kingdom to play its necessary part in the Western alliance would be weakened.

5. These considerations, although they apply with particular force to the United Kingdom, apply also to other European countries. In their memorandum of January, 1952, the Italian Embassy argued this matter among others with great force and conviction, and the United Kingdom would endorse what was said on it there.

6. It is not disputed that the withdrawal of tariff concessions under an "escape clause" procedure may very occasionally and in certain special circumstance he justified; and it is, in fact, recognised in Article XIX of the G.A.T.T. that participating countries are free to withdraw tariff concessions included in the schedules to the G.A.T.T. if, as a result of unforeseen developments and of the effect of obligations under the G.A.T.T., products are imported in such increased quantities and under such conditions as to cause or threaten serious injury to domestic producers.

7. If, however, the purpose of the tariff negotiations conducted under the G.A.T.T. is not to be defeated, it is of the greatest importance that the provisions of Article XIX should be invoked only in cases where increased imports are causing or threatening undoubtedly serious injury to domestic producers and where the other conditions laid down in the G.A.T.T. are also satisfied. Moreover, while this applies to action taken by any contracting party, it applies with special force to any suggestion that the U.S. Government should have resort to Article XIX. This is so far two reasons. First, if the contracting party which is the major creditor country in the world were to set an example of withdrawing tariff concessions whenever they revealed their effectiveness through more vigorous competition between the imported and the domestically produced product, it would be politically impossible for the governments of debtor countries—which have their own internal vested interests to contend with—to withstand pres-


sure to have recourse to Article XIX in order to free themselves from tariff commitments which were proving embarrassing. Secondly, if any suggestion were to get about that the U.S. Government were prepared to apply any but the most rigorous standard of judgment to escape clause applications, the reliance which exporters in the United Kingdom and other countries could place on the continued application of United States tariff concessions would be so undermined that their will to make the special efforts and to take the added risks that are frequently necessary to increase their dollar-earning exports would be seriously impaired. In such circumstances, the difficulties of the Governments concerned in playing their part in what must be a co-operative endeavour to redress the present unbalance in payments between the dollar and non-dollar areas would be gravely increased. That in turn could not but affect the ability and willingness of those Governments to co-operate with the United States in commercial and other policies.

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the memorandum issued on 18th April to the United States of America on the increase of applications for protective tariffs, Her Majesty's Government will give a lead by removing import duties into Great Britain.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Her Majesty's Government are prepared now, as in the past, to negotiate tariff concessions with other countries on a mutually advantageous basis.

Sir W. Smithers: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the only way to avert world economic collapse, and, indeed, a third world war, is to remove all barriers to international trade as quickly as possible?

Mr. Jay: Is not the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) now becoming infected with Liberalism?

Sir W. Smithers: On a point of order. I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, if I may say that I am not infected with Communism.

Anglo-Soviet Trading

Mr. Baker White: asked the President of the Board of Trade what approaches have been made, and over how long a period, by his Department to the Soviet Trade Delegation in London to buy, with the sterling accumulated by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in this country, British textiles and other consumer goods.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: My Department have taken every opportunity in the course of the last 15 months to impress upon the Russians, through their Trade Delegation in London, the desirability of their buying textiles and other consumer goods from the United Kingdom, and in particular submitted a list of such goods to the Delegation in September last. Again, my hon. Friend the Secretary for Overseas Trade at the March session of the Economic Commission for Europe, urged the Eastern European Governments represented to import more of these goods, especially textiles, from Western Europe. Finally, I myself wrote recently to the head of the Soviet Trade Delegation in connection with the reports of the Moscow Economic Conference asking whether he was in fact ready to enter into contracts and offering the assistance of my Department.

Mr. White: Will my right hon. Friend bring his answer to the notice of those starry-eyed innocents who believe that by going to Moscow they can get business which cannot be got from the Soviet Trade Delegation here, and does he agree that the Russians do not want cotton textiles at all, but only certain types of woollen textiles?

Mr. Thorneycroft: My information on the latter point is that the demand from the Russians, in so far as it exists, is for woollen rather than for cotton textiles.

Mr. H. Hynd: Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, for the hon. Member opposite to refer to the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson) as a "starry-eyed innocent"?

Mr. J. McGovern: In view of the alleged success of the unorthodox trade delegation to Russia, would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared, if means could be found to free these gentlemen from their duties here, to send them on a world tour in order to help in the rescue of decadent capitalism?

Coronation Pottery Souvenirs

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will allow pottery souvenirs for Her Majesty's Coronation to be made available in this country in the traditional manner.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Yes, Sir. I am glad to say that the supply on the home market of pottery souvenirs for Her Majesty's Coronation will be allowed. While the occasion would itself undoubtedly justify this step, it will also have the advantage of a useful export trade, as well as satisfying the very natural demand for this coronation ware at home. The method of release is being worked out, but there will be enough available for the home market to meet the requirements of this occasion.

Mr. Percy Shurmer: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that this country is not flooded with trashy souvenirs of the Coronation to the detriment of the traders in this country?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that the standard of work done in the potteries of this country will quite well look after that matter.

Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan: In view of the fact that, as a rule, these souvenirs are very largely heraldic in design, will my right hon. Friend take steps to ensure that the United Kingdom heraldry is used and not solely English heraldry as has so often been used in the past.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the hon. Members for Stoke can be relied upon to look after pottery matters, and is he further aware of, or has he received information about, the very satisfactory correspondence which has taken place between the hon. Members for Stoke and the Prime Minister who decided that it was unbecoming to raise this matter in public for the time being?

Imperial Preference (Treaty Limitations)

Mr. Ronald Russell: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of international treaties entered into by the United Kingdom which prevent the extension and development of Imperial Preference.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Yes, Sir.

Following is the information:
The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade prevents member Governments from granting preference margins in excess, broadly speaking, of those prevailing on a base date which, in the case of the United Kingdom, is 10th April, 1947. In addition, the United

Kingdom has, both under the General Agreement and under bilateral treaties and agreements, commitments as to the maximum extent of particular margins of preference, and commitments not to increase above stated levels the rates of duty on particular classes of goods when imported from foreign countries; these commitments limit the extension and development of Imperial Preference.
Further, as a party to the Congo Basin Treaties and as Administering Authority under the United Nations Trusteeship system, the United Kingdom has commitments which prevent the institution of Imperial Preference in territories which fall within the Conventional Basin of the Congo and the scope of the Trusteeship Agreements respectively.

List of international treaties and agreements referred to in paragraph 1 above.

MULTILATERAL
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade; Protocol of Provisional Application signed at Geneva on 30th October, 1947 (Cmd. 7258).

BILATERAL
Argentina—Agreement relating to Trade and Commerce of 1st December, 1946 (Cmd. 5324).
Cuba—Commercial Agreement of 19th February, 1937 (Cmd. 5867). (See note (a) below.)
Denmark—Agreement and Protocol relating to Trade and Commerce of 24th April, 1933 (Cmd. 4424) and Supplementary Agreement relating to Trade and Commerce of 19th June, 1936 (Cmd. 5400). (See note (b) below.)
France—Agreement relating to Trade and Commerce with Protocols of 27th June, 1934 (Cmd. 4632) and Exchange of Notes regarding the importation of Raffia of French Origin and of British East African Coffee and New Zealand Kauri Gum, 16–23rd July, 1937 (Cmd. 5558). (See note (c) below.)
Greece—Treaty of Commerce and Navigation of 16th July, 1926 (Cmd. 2790). (See note (d) below.)
Iceland—Agreement relating to Trade and Commerce of 19th May, 1933 (Cmd. 4331).
India—Trade Agreement of 20th March, 1939 (Cmd. 5966). (See note (e) below.)
Poland—Agreement in regard to Trade and Commerce of 27th February, 1935 (Cmd. 4984).
Sweden—Agreement relating to Trade and Commerce of 15th May, 1933 (Cmd. 4421). (See note (f) below.)
Turkey—Agreement of 3rd February, 1940, amending the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation of 1st March, 1930 (Cmd. 6171).
U.S.A.—Trade Agreement of 17th November, 1938 (Cmd. 5882). (See note (g) below.)
Notes.—(a) Cuba reserves the right under Article 7 (4) of the Agreement of 1937 to terminate the Agreement at three months' notice if the United Kingdom should increase the differences which existed on 1st May, 1936, between the duties on Cuban sugar and tobacco and those on Commonwealth sugar and tobacco.


(b) Of the obligations on the United Kingdom Tariff arising out of the Agreements with Denmark, only the binding of free entry for bacon is now operative. The other tariff obligations are in suspense while the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade is operative between the United Kingdom and Denmark.
(c) There is an oral understanding that the Agreement relating to Trade and Commerce of 1934 is suspended so long as both parties to it are contracting parties to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
(d) By an Exchange of Letters dated 21st February, 1951, it was agreed that the tariff provisions of this Treaty of Commerce and Navigation should remain inoperative for such time as both the United Kingdom and Greece are contracting parties to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
(e) Article 7 of this Agreement contains an undertaking that the United Kingdom will maintain free entry for imports from all sources of the following products:—

Shelac, seed lac, stick lac and other varieties of these lacs.
Jute, raw.
Myrobalans.
Mica slabs and splittings.
Hemp of the variety crotalaria juncea, not further dressed after scutching or decorticating; tow of such variety of hemp.

(f) Negotiations for the formal abrogation of this Agreement are in progress.
(g) This Agreement is inoperative so long as both parties are contracting parties to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

Temporary Civil Servant (Reprimand)

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he has taken in connection with the letter involving a disciplinary case which he sent by hand to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, on 8th April, 1952.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The officer concerned has been severely reprimanded.

Mr. Thomas: Can the Minister guarantee that in future when hon. Members table Questions concerning his Department, no pressure will be exercised by the civil servants concerned that the Questions shall be altered?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The hon. Member is, of course, familiar with the facts of this case. The letter written by the temporary civil servant in the local office was one which should never have been written in the circumstances. The hon. Gentleman has had a full apology from me, and the civil servant concerned has been severely reprimanded. I hope that will close the incident.

Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that this civil servant has been sending out other letters expressing her personal opinion and enclosing franked envelopes for replies to be sent by the people concerned? Will he consider whether, indeed, she ought to be in a position to continue doing that?

Mr. Thorneycroft: If the hon. Gentleman has any other matter of this sort to bring to my attention, I very much hope he will do so.

Textile Industry (Government Orders)

Mr. Driberg: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many workers in the textile industry he estimates will be provided with employment, and for how long a time, as a result of the placing of additional orders on Government account for goods worth some £20 million or £25 million; and what steps are being taken, by these or other means, to alleviate unemployment and short-time working among textile workers in Braintree and Bocking, Essex.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I cannot give a more precise indication than one on the lines given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the debate on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill on 7th April last, namely, that £20 million spent on textiles might provide employment for 20,000–30,000 people for a year.
As regards the second part of the Question, I think it unlikely that any of these orders will be placed in Braintree and Bocking because the latest figures showed unemployment there to be below the national average, because the area has reasonable opportunities for alternative employment and because I think it in the national interest to concentrate these additional orders in the worst affected areas.

Mr. Driberg: While fully appreciating that point and realising that in my constituency the workers concerned are very few compared with Lancashire, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if, nevertheless, he is not aware that unemployment, even for a few thousands or a few hundreds, means just as much to the men and their families? Will he take note of the fact that that was why I inserted the words "other means" in my Question?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not belittle the point made by the hon. Member, but unemployment there is below the national average and below what it was in that district in March, 1950.

Brigadier O. L. Prior-Palmer: Is it not a fact that during the war certain types of armament factories were moved to textile areas and to textile factories and, if that was done, is it not possible to do it again to relieve unemployment?

Mr. Thorneycroft: That matter raises a separate issue, but it has been under discussion.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that however welcome as temporary alleviation these orders based on armaments may be, they provide no sort of long-term or permanent remedy for the crisis now prevailing in the textile industry? Will he do something to persuade his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary not to discourage merchant adventurers from going anywhere in the world where they can find new markets for these goods?

Export Market Research

Mr. de Freitas: asked the President of the Board of Trade what facilities are provided by his Department for advice on export market research.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The services of the Commercial Relations and Exports Department of the Board of Trade are at the disposal of exporters who require assistance or advice in conducting export market research. The Department is always prepared to provide for exporters through Her Majesty's commercial representatives overseas broad surveys of the market for specific goods in particular countries abroad. At the stage where exporters require intensive studies of the markets abroad for their products they are advised to use the services of private specialist organisations.

Mr. de Freitas: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what use is made of these facilities and whether it is being increased at the present time?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Very full use is made of these facilities at present, and within the limits which can be covered by an organisation as widely stretched as

that all over the world they provide a very useful service. Detailed studies are often carried out by specialist organisations in the countries concerned.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Has my right hon. Friend consulted the merchant adventurer for South Ayrshire on this matter?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHMENTS

Miss Irene Ward: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the decision to grant a second week's annual paid holiday to workers in Government industrial establishments he is now able to reconsider the claims of the staff side for equal pay.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): As the question of the grant of a second week's paid holiday to Government industrial employees is still being discussed with the trade union concerned, the second part of my hon. Friend's Question does not arise.

Miss Ward: Can my hon. Friend say whether the approach for this week's holiday has come from Her Majesty's Government to the National Joint Industrial Council or from the National Joint Industrial Council, because Mr. Craig, speaking for them announced that the approach was made by the Government? I should like that point cleared up.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think that in the case of negotiations it is very helpful to indicate from which direction certain proposals came. These are important and delicate negotiations, and I hope my hon. Friend will prefer to leave the matter there.

Miss Ward: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now make a statement on his policy with regard to a second week's annual paid holiday to workers in Government industrial establishments.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I regret that I have nothing to add to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke) on 8th April.

Miss Ward: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the women of the country are watching the progress of these negotiations with very great interest?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I can assure the hon. Lady that the general interest in these negotiations is fully appreciated.

Mr. Ralph Assheton: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the taxpayers of the country are watching this matter with very great anxiety?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is also fully appreciated.

Mr. Frederick Lee: Where in private industry a fortnight's holiday has now been granted, can the hon. Gentleman extend the fortnight's holiday, to start this year, to the same type of workers who are now in Government employ?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As the hon. Member, with his own experience of the Ministry of Labour, will realise, that is rather a difficult question to answer during the course of negotiations.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (BANK ADVANCES)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what Treasury control is exercised over bank advances to the nationalised industries; what further sums will be permitted over and above the present total of such advances at approximately £140 million; when refinancing of these industries is to be carried out; and what methods he proposes to sanction.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Before approving temporary borrowing from the banks, the Treasury, in consultation with the Minister concerned, satisfies itself that the advances are necessary to enable the nationalised industries to carry out their approved capital programmes and generally to discharge their functions as defined in the relevant Acts. Borrowings by the British Electricity Authority, which account for a very large part of the present total of bank advances to the nationalised industries, are about to be funded by a public stock issue. As regards the other industries, it is not possible to forecast what further bank advances will be necessary, and it would not be in the public interest to disclose the intentions in regard to either the

timing or the method of refinancing existing advances.

Mr. Nabarro: Could my hon. Friend give the House an assurance that, quite apart from the legitimate needs for capital expenditure and expansion by the nationalised industries, due discretion and control are exercised over further loans to them in accordance with the policy of restriction exercised by the joint stock banks over private industry?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As my hon. Friend will, I think, appreciate, when he reads the terms of my answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT, full control is envisaged.

Mr. E. Shinwell: Will the hon. Gentleman do everything he possibly can to prevent some of his hon. Friends sabotaging these nationalised industries?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is not a dispute into which I should like to enter with the right hon. Gentleman.

At the end of Questions—

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Speaker: Sir Thomas Dugdale.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you permit the Prime Minister to answer Question 45, which asks whether the Minister of Transport is to be made responsible for fares, and such other Questions addressed to him on the Order Paper today as he may feel disposed to answer?

Mr. Speaker: I have received no such request from the Minister concerned.

AGRICULTURE (ANNUAL PRICE REVIEW)

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

52. Mr. JOSEPH T. PRICE,—To ask the Minister of Agriculture whether his offer of an additional £50 million to farmers has been accepted; and what proportion of this sum will be passed on to the domestic consumer in increased prices.

57. Mr. ANTHONY HURD,—To ask the Minister of Agriculture if he can now announce the outcome of the annual price review of farm products.

The Minister of Agriculture (Major Sir Thomas Dugdale): Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I should like to make a statement on the result of the Annual Agricultural Review. I am glad to be able to inform the House that a schedule of farm prices has been agreed which, in the current national circumstances—

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are we to understand that the time which the right hon. Gentleman will take up will be taken into account?

Mr. Speaker: An Amendment to that effect was accepted this morning.

Mr. C. R. Attlee: What about business questions, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: The statement is in answer to Question 57, and it comes before the business questions.

Sir T. Dugdale: May I start again? I am glad to be able to inform the House that a schedule of farm prices has been agreed which, in the current national circumstances, is considered both by the Government and by the leaders of the three National Farmers' Unions to be properly related both to the economic condition of the industry and to the task before it. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a full statement and a schedule of the agreed prices.
Agriculture will have its full share of the nation's economic resources. Because the majority of our farms are small and the men who farm them find it particularly difficult to finance expansion in output in the face of rising costs, we have tried to mitigate where possible the adverse effect of cost increases and so avoid the need for undue increases in farm prices.
The Government have decided to hold unchanged until 31st March, 1953, the basic release prices of feedingstuffs. We propose also to lay before the House a scheme for continuing ploughing-up grants; and a scheme to extend the subsidy on fertilisers. Subject to the necessary statutory authority, we propose to authorise the renewal of a calf subsidy.
The increases in farm prices, together with the subsidy arrangements I have mentioned, should enable the industry both to meet the higher costs which have arisen during the year and to finance the programme for the further expansion of output.
The country's economic difficulties, coupled with the actual and prospective world shortage of food, especially meat, make it essential that more food should be raised from our own soil. The just and constructive award which I am now announcing provides a firm foundation for the long-term policy which the Government are working out in conjunction with the leaders of the industry. It should lead to significant improvement in the supply of home-produced food for the consumer, and I see no reason why by 1956 net output should not have been raised by at least 60 per cent. above prewar.

Mr. W. Nally: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have just had a statement which, unless some figures are given in it, seems to me to be a gross abuse of the normal custom of the House. The point of order I am anxious to raise is this. Upon what grounds was it decided that a statement of that kind should be made which, in point of fact, conveys no real information whatsoever?

Mr. Speaker: I understand that this statement was in answer to Question 57. It is quite customary for long answers to have the figures and details put in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Nally: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is clearly understood that it is within your discretion that, if a Minister desires, for purposes that seem to him proper, it is possible for him to rise and make a statement in answer to a Question, particularly when that Question is of great importance. That has always been well understood in the House. But the Minister when he rose made no reference whatsoever to this statement being in answer to a Question. I think I am right in saying that. Therefore, this statement was made to the House without any relevance to any Question on the Order Paper. If it was such a statement and you, Sir, in your discretion, thought fit to allow that statement to be made, I say it is an intolerable impertinence that that statement should not include any single fact which we want to know.

Mr. Anthony Hurd: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I distinctly heard you say that the statement was to be made in answer to Question 57, in my name.

Hon. Members: That was afterwards.

Mr. Speaker: I would point out to the House that it is often very difficult for a Minister and for the Speaker to draw the line about voluminous statements. There is a danger both ways. Either it is so long as to consume a great deal of the time of the House or it may be unduly short, we are all liable to make mistakes.

Mr. George Brown: On this point I am bound to say that I think the Government have laid a trap for themselves. There have never been a more inadequate statement on the result of the farm price review than that offered this year. The Minister of Agriculture has given me every facility, and I exempt him from any part in it, but somebody has treated the House with a good deal less than the courtesy that we normally have. I will be as interrogative as I can. This is a most important statement. Are the Government not aware that an announcement of the farm prices, involving a very large measure of recoupment of public money, really ought not to be conveyed to this House without the figures being mentioned? Are the Government aware that, although I may not necessarily criticise the figure if I knew it, I am entitled, as is the House, to know what it is, as indeed is the whole country?
I want to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman some specific questions. I warn the Leader of the House that the use of this form of statement is bound to add to the great number of questions which one has to ask in order to get at the truth. First of all, may I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman if he will be good enough to tell us what is the total recoupment made by the Government to the industry? Secondly, how much of the increased cost this year is the industry itself being asked to bear? Thirdly, within that recoupment, what is the actual split between the straightforward increase in farm prices and the new or extended subsidies? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned some four subsidies which are either new or extensions of old ones. How much, in fact, of the recoupment is being covered by those subsidies and how much by straightforward increases of prices?
May I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman how much of this total recoup-

ment, which I guess to be a round £50 million altogether, is being charged against the consumers' food subsidies? The policy may or may not be right, but we really must know. Would I be right in thinking that it is £50 million and that it is not being charged against the food subsidies? If so, will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us, on the basis of the Chancellor's answer that £150 million reduction in the food subsidies represented an increase of 1s. 6d. per head in the cost of food, what this particular charge represents? Would I be right again in guessing an additional 6d. per head from now on? I should like to ask one or two other questions arising out of such details. We must really get at this. For example, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, at the end of his statement, referred to the fact that he sees no reason why the net output in 1956—

Mr. Nally: On a point of order. All these questions are completely and absolutely irrelevant. I should like to submit one point for your consideration, Mr. Speaker. It is well known in the House' that a smallish but growing group of Members on this side have certain strong views in relation to the farming subsidy policy. I want to ask you whether those hon. Members on this side of the House who are going to rise to ask further questions will be accorded exactly the same type of privileges as are now afforded to other hon. Members.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: Further to that point of order. May I respectfully point out that the Minister said that he would circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a full statement, with a schedule? Surely it is perfectly within the powers of hon. Members thereafter to ask any questions arising from that statement after they have had proper time to consider it.

Mr. Joseph T. Price: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Member rising to a point of order?

Mr. Price: I am rising to a point of order which is a very short one. I should like to ask the Minister, when he replies to the rather voluminous points which have already been raised, to explain to the House why, in giving the report he has already given, he has elected to do so in answer to Question


No. 57 which is of general concern, and at the same time has ignored Question No. 52, standing in my own name and referring to specific figures which are germane to this subject.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Brown: I want to suit the convenience of the House. I have other questions to put, but perhaps it would be as well at this stage if I asked the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to answer the questions on general cost which I have put, and then I should like to put some more specific questions on the details of the statement.

Sir T. Dugdale: I should like to remind the right hon. Gentleman that the last time the Labour Government were responsible for announcing the result of the Annual Price Review, it was not announced in this House at all. It is my purpose to try to give as much information as I can to the House and to answer the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The first and the main point in the right hon. Gentleman's remarks was the actual cost in recoupment of this Review. This is a complicated figure to give: it can only be done in three parts.
The starting point must be the schedule as announced by my predecessor this time last year. Following on that, the Special Review of last November added £16 million in respect of labour in a full year to the price schedules determined by my predecessor. Following upon that the once-for-all additions made to these schedules in fulfilment of the Special Review of 1950 have to be taken off. That is a sum of £2½ million.
The particular award which I am announcing today adds to the price schedule of a year ago, as adjusted in these two ways, £39 million. I want to emphasise to the House that this award is not a bonus to farmers. This award will enable farmers to maintain the present level of income and will give help to mitigate the cost increases which might otherwise have made it particularly difficult for the small farmers to expand production.
With regard to the second point made by the right hon. Gentleman, as to the cost of the award to the consumers of

this country, I would say that the cost of the award will, in the normal way, be taken into account by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food in announcing the retail price increases necessary to bring the food subsidies down to the rate of £250 million a year announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget proposals. It is the intention of the Government to issue a White Paper dealing with all the very difficult and intricate figures which surround this Review and giving further details as to the exact extent of recoupment and where it becomes effective. I would ask the House to await the publication of that White Paper.

Mr. Brown: rose—

Mr. Nally: On a point of order. I am sorry to take up the time of the House, Mr. Speaker, but this is something which I do not think either you or hon. Members should tolerate. It was perfectly well known last night, or late yesterday afternoon, by members of the Press upstairs—one of whom gave me the details—that the figures that we have been asking for this afternoon have already informally been given to the Press. Why should not the House be informed that the total figure it will cost the consumer is £52 million? It is really disgraceful and outrageous.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Brown: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has sought to give the impression that he has answered the points I have put. With very great respect, he has not. The main issue which we must know in order to form a judgment is simply what is the total cost of the whole recoupment. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said £39½ million, with the other things. In point of fact, am I not right in saying that when one allows for the feedingstuffs subsidy and the other subsidies, the total recoupment is of the order of £50 million?
Further, am I not right in saying that the whole of that £50 million, subsidies as well as price increases, is to be charged against the consumer subsidies? Therefore, am I not right in saying that there is something of the order of 6d. per head to be paid by every consumer per week


for this increase in farm incomes? It may be right or wrong; but we must have it.
In the whole of this announcement there is no indication of an agricultural food policy. Reference was made to a figure of 60 per cent. over pre-war by 1956, which represents, if achieved, an increase of 2½ per cent. per annum between now and then, as against the increase of 7 per cent. per annum achieved under the Labour Government. I am very glad to hear that we are to have a White Paper. In view of the inadequacy of this announcement and the impossibility of discussing it intelligently before we get the figures in the White Paper, will the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House arrange for us to have a debate on this White Paper, this award and the apparently non-existent Government food policy for which we have waited so long?

Mr. Harold Davies: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman—

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Maurice Webb: May I put a simple point which I think the House wants to know and is entitled to know, and which certainly the housewives of this country are entitled to know: how much does this mean in terms of the food prices? Will some Minister on the Front Bench opposite tell us exactly how much the prices of the foodstuffs—the meat and the milk and the bread—will go up to the housewives as a result of this arrangement? That is a simple question.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Sir T. Dugdale: I have already answered that question. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I think that, on reflection, the House will agree that it is absolutely impossible to assess exactly what it will mean in retail figures and prices. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is it roughly?"] I stand on what I have said—that the cost of this award will be taken into account by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Food in announcing the retail prices necessary to bring the food subsidies down to £250 million.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he was consulted by his right hon. and gallant Friend before his right hon. and gallant Friend made this extraordinarily incomplete statement

to the House? There are many precedents for statements having been made, in the House or outside it, on the result of these considerations of farm prices, but I have never known a statement of this kind made which was so incomplete and yet so tendentious, and containing no figures. May I further ask the Leader of the House whether, in view of that, he will afford an opportunity to the House to discuss the whole of this matter?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Harry Crookshank): I was waiting until we came to the business Question. If, however, it suits right hon. Gentlemen for me to deal with the matter now, it seems to me that, as my right hon. and gallant Friend has said there is to be a White Paper, then we had better wait and see what the White Paper says before we decide on what further action the House would like to take.

Mr. J. Grimond: May I ask the Minister how far, in agreeing on these prices, the extra freight charges which affect certain parts of the country very severely were taken into account? Secondly, may I ask him whether, in view of the fluctuation in various prices which farmers have to pay, it is his intention to undertake an interim review of prices in the current year if that should be necessary?

Sir T. Dugdale: My answer is that we have taken into account all cost increases arising since the last Annual Review, other than the wages award, which has been dealt with separately.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: As the Minister has no authority to speak for agriculture in Scotland, may I ask whether the Secretary of State for Scotland is not to be asked to clarify the situation as far as Scotland is concerned?

Mrs. Barbara Castle: Could the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give an assurance that the White Paper will contain full details, including a clear picture of the price burden which will fall on the consumer as a result of this award? Can he also give an assurance that that White Paper will be published before the local government elections?

Sir T. Dugdale: The White Paper will give all the information which is available to my Department. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] As soon as we can make it available.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: What have you to hide?

Mr. Anthony Hurd: When we are considering the detailed figures, which no doubt we shall have in HANSARD tomorrow, may we at the same time be given an assurance from my right hon. and gallant Friend that the stage is now set for a really effective forward drive for increased food production, thus reversing the trend of the last two years?

Sir T. Dugdale: That is the whole intention of this Review.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: It does not seem that this is doing much good.

Following is the statement:

1. On behalf of the three Ministers responsible for agriculture in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, I am glad to be able to inform the House that after a full review of the economic condition and prospects of the agricultural industry a schedule of farm prices has been agreed which in the current national circumstances is considered both by the Government, and by the leaders of the three N.F.U.s, to be properly related both to the economic condition of the industry and to the task before it.
2. The results of this Review and the decisions arising from it must be seen in their proper perspective. They provide a firm foundation for the long-term policy which the Government are working out in conjunction with the leaders of the industry and should create that confidence in the future which is essential if the industry is to respond effectively to the national need. At the same time the Government recognise that this price award is not, of itself, a comprehensive programme covering all the many aspects of farming on which farmers have to plan ahead. The Government are, therefore, pressing on urgently with discussions on these other aspects of policy and I shall announce our conclusions as and when they are reached.
3. One aspect we shall immediately discuss with the National Farmers'

Unions is the minimum prices for livestock and livestock products for 1954–55 and 1955–56. The Government intend to raise minimum prices for livestock products from their present unrealistic level to something much nearer current prices.
4. The Agriculture Act provides for varying the methods by which its objects are achieved. By this award we are fixing prices for livestock products up to 31st March, 1953, and for the 1953 crops, and we shall shortly be fixing minimum prices up to 1956. In respect of any of these prices it may become possible and desirable to vary the methods of implementation. Any variation will, of course, be the subject of consultation with the industry and our object will be to maintain therein the value of the awards now made.
5. I come now to the Review itself. There is general agreement as to the character of the task ahead. It is, in broad outline, to produce not only more feed for our livestock but also as much wheat for our own consumption as we reasonably can and enough potatoes to satisfy consumption demands; to maintain our supplies of milk and eggs; but above all to do our utmost to produce more meat.
6. The extent to which the industry can respond to this call will depend upon its economic condition, upon its efficiency, and upon the tools which can be made available for the job. Above all, it will depend upon the farming community's appreciation of the national need, its sense of responsibilty and its adaptability.
7. Agriculture will have its full share of the Nation's economic resources and we look with confidence to the men and women in the industry to raise still further the efficiency with which they produce food from our resources of land, labour, capital, equipment and knowledge. The Government intend, with the full support of the leaders of the industry and with all the emphasis it can command, to inaugurate a special drive to increase output and make the fullest use of the land. We shall take vigorous action to ensure that the limited area of agricultural land in the country is neither used inadequately nor misused through incompetence.


8. Responsible and representative agriculturists agree with the Government that with the resources that are or will be made available a valuable increase in net output of food can be achieved by improvements in the production and use of grass, in the yields of crops and in the management of livestock and by a further substantial increase in the tillage acreage. By 1956 the industry can be reasonably expected not only to have reversed the present downward trends in production but to have raised net output to at least 60 per cent. above pre-war.
9. Because the majority of our farms are small, and the men who farm them find it particularly difficult to finance expansion in output in the face of rising costs, we have tried to mitigate where possible the adverse effect of cost increases and so avoid the need for undue increases in farm prices.
10. We have decided to hold unchanged until 31st March, 1953, the basic release prices of feedingstuffs. We propose also to lay before the House a scheme for continuing ploughing-up grants; and a scheme to extend the subsidy on fertilisers; and, subject to the necessary statutory authority, to authorise the renewal of a calf subsidy. For this last purpose we have allocated a total of £4½ million and we have agreed with the industry that we shall jointly work out a scheme under which this amount will be devoted not only to a subsidy on suitable steer calves but also to its extension to heifer calves of recognisable beef types.
11. There will be increases in farm prices as set out in the schedule which I am circulating. These, together with the subsidy arrangements I have mentioned, and the continuance of the price increases announced in November as a result of the Special Review then held, should enable the industry both to meet the higher costs which have arisen during the year and to finance the programme for the further expansion of output.
12. The cost of the award will in the normal way be taken into account by my

right hon. Friend the Minister of Food in announcing the retail price increases necessary to bring the food subsidies down to the rate of £250 million a year announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget proposals.
13. The country's economic difficulties, coupled with the actual and prospective world shortage of food, especially meat, make it essential that more food should be raised from our own soil. The just and constructive award which I am now announcing should lead to significant improvement in the supply of home produced food for the consumer. It should remove from the industry any hesitation about future prospects and provide a real incentive for every farmer to go vigorously about his job of raising output and thus playing his full and indispensable part in strengthening the country's economy and the nation's defences.

CROP PRICES FOR 1953



Present 1952 price (approximate annual average)*
Addition for 1953 harvest to existing price schedules†



s.
d.
s.
d.


Wheat, millable, per cwt.
29
6
1
3


Barley, minimum price per cwt.
23
6
1
6


Oats, minimum price per cwt.
21
2
1
0


Rye, minimum price per cwt.
22
0
3
0


Sugar beet, per ton‡
112
2
4
6


Potatoes, average per ton§
239
0
5
0


* Price fixed after 1951 Annual Review plus Special Review Additions (November, 1951).


†Existing schedules are as announced on 29th March, 1951 and 29th November, 1951 subject to grade and seasonal variations.


‡Average for beet of 15·5 per cent. sugar content. An alternative method of payment in relation to sugar content is to be negotiated for 1953.


§The discount for substandard ware potatoes of the 1953 harvest is to be negotiated. The 1952 price quoted is for standard ware.

PRICES OF LIVESTOCK AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTS


Prices to operate for the livestock year to 31st March, 1953


(with provision for retrospective payments as announced)



Approximate average annual price for 1951–52*
Addition for 1952–53 to existing price schedules†



s.
d.
s.
d.


Milk, pence per gallon‡

36·60

1·54


Fat cattle, per live cwt.§
120
8
3
6


Fat sheep and lambs, per lb. dressed carcase weight including headage payments
2
5½

1


Fat pigs, per score dead weight≑
53
8
1
6


Hen eggs, per dozen sold through packing stations
4
4¼

2½


Duck eggs, per dozen, minimum price
3
1¼

2½


Wool, per lb. (from 1st May, 1952)
6
0½ minus
1
6½


* Including November, 1951, Special Review additions calculated over a full year, but not including elements included in 1951–52 prices as once-for-all additions in respect of a deferred Special Review in 1950.


† Existing schedules are as announced on 29th March, 1951 (excluding the once-for-all additions) and 29th November, 1951, subject to grade and seasonal variations.


† Part of the price increase will be used for additions to the production bonuses. The 1951–52 price quoted includes production bonus, quality premiums and attestation bonus.


§ The price increase will be limited to adult clean cattle. The 1951–52 price quoted relates to steers, heifers and cow-heifers only, and includes quality premiums.


║ The average increase of 1s. 6d. will be concentrated on clean pigs. The 1951–52 price relates to the quality weight range.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. C. R. Attlee: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business of the House for next week?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Yes, but first it may be convenient to the House to know that it is not proposed to move tonight the Motion on the Paper relating to the MacBrayne mail contract.
The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 28TH APRIL—A debate will take place on Transport Fares on a Government Motion.
Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Miners' Welfare Bill and the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, which are expected to be received from another place today.
TUESDAY, 29TH APRIL—Supply [10th allotted Day]:—Committee.
Debate on Central African Federation until 7 o'clock.
Afterwards, debate on the Sale of New Cars.
Consideration of the Motion to approve the Draft National Assistance (Determination of Need) Amendment Regulations, 1952.
WEDNESDAY, 30TH APRIL—We shall begin the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.
THURSDAY, 1ST MAY—Report and Third Reading of the National Health Service Bill.
FRIDAY, 2ND MAY—Consideration of Private Members' Motions.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman when the Government's Motion on transport fares will be available, as it is inconvenient to have this announcement when we do not know what the Motion is? It is inconvenient because of the natural desire, probably, to put down Amendments.

Mr. Crookshank: It will be down tonight.

Mr. Attlee: May I further ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the question of a day on the matter we have been discussing just now? Although we do not know what is in the White Paper and we have had to drag a few fugitive figures from the Minister, it is quite obvious that a serious issue is raised here which ought to be before the House as soon as possible.

Mr. Crookshank: As I said just now, I think we had better wait to see the White Paper before we decide on anything further.

Mr. I. Mikardo: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the importance of allowing time in the very near future to debate the very important statement made the other day by the Foreign Secretary on the European Defence Community and matters arising therefrom?

Mr. Crookshank: I think that is one of the questions which might be raised through the usual channels.

Mr. Edward Davies: In view of the current interest in and importance of the transport question, is it proposed to extend the time by a moderate amount, say, one hour, so that we can have a most useful debate and as many hon. Members as possible take part in it?

Mr. Crookshank: I should hardly think it would be necessary.

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House when we may have an opportunity of discussing the Economic Survey?

Mr. Crookshank: I think that, too, might be explored through the usual channels.

Mr. Archer Baldwin: In view of the importance of the announcement made this afternoon by the Minister of Agriculture, and in view of the fact that it is not possible to get any satisfaction by question and answer across the Floor of the House, may I ask my right hon. Friend to see, through the usual channels, whether a day can be given to debating the whole agricultural position which is of vital importance to the consumer and to the economic situation of the country, and so remove some of the ignorance which is displayed by those people not engaged in the industry?

Mr. Crookshank: I think the answer to the hon. Gentleman is the same as that which I gave to the Leader of the Opposition—that we had better see the White Paper.

Mr. David Logan: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the following question. I want to know when the Government will be able to make a statement in the House in regard to an amending Bill relating to the voluntary schools. Is it the intention of the Government at an early date to bring in such a Bill to remove the financial pressure?

Mr. Crookshank: I will ask my right hon. Friend. I cannot hold everything in my mind about that.

Mr. John Hynd: In view of the very important statement we have just recently

had from the Government about the necessity for vast subsidies to sustain the agricultural industry in view of its economic importance and its importance to defence—and, apparently, also to enable the prices of the commodities to be reduced—may we expect that the Government will now give further time for a debate on the equally important transport industry, so that they can explain how they are going to do precisely the same thing with that industry?

Mr. Sydney Silverman: May I ask the Leader of the House whether it is his intention, and, if so, when, to find a short time to discuss the Motion put down by several hon. Friends of mine relating to the Chair?
[That this House regrets the action of Mr. Speaker in accepting a Motion for the closure after calling the honourable Member for Kirkcaldy and before the same had had the opportunity to speak.]

Mr. Crookshank: I have only just had my attention called to that. I shall have to consider it.

Mr. F. Beswick: In view of the great interest there is in the debate on Monday about transport, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the question of extending the time by at least one hour? Shall we get a definite statement on Monday about the position of fares in the London area?

Mr. Crookshank: I think it would be as well to wait to see what the terms of the Motion are before we discuss that or what will be referred to in the debate.

Mr. Beswick: What about the extension?

Mr. Herbert Morrison: Can the Leader of the House state—no doubt, he knows—what the terms of the Motion are going to be on the transport situation on Monday?

Mr. Crookshank: They will be handed in today, as I have said.

Mr. Morrison: But may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he knows what the Motion is going to be? It was not unusual for the previous Government to give advance information to the House on the terms of Motions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] We did very frequently. It would be for the convenience of hon. Members on both sides if we knew now.

Mr. Crookshank: I noted what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I think we are only following the usual practice.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: Is it intended that the Minister of Transport shall take part in the debate?

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: While we are still in the atmosphere of subsidies, may I address this question to the Leader of the House? When is time going to be given to the MacBrayne discussion, which is rather important to keep private enterprise afloat in the Western Isles as elsewhere?

Mr. Crookshank: Very soon, but, after the late sitting last night, I thought it would be for the convenience of hon. Members—of those who were here, at any rate—if we did not have another late sitting tonight.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: I put a direct question to the right hon. Gentleman, and he has not deigned to reply.

Captain Robert Ryder: It was not worth a reply.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: May I repeat the question?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): I regret to say that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has not been well for some time, and he has now had to go on the sick list.

Mr. Nally: One can well understand why the Government should be slightly lily-livered about the set-up with the National Farmers' Union, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman this. We are to have a White Paper, and presumably after the White Paper there will be a demand for a debate. Can we have an assurance that that White Paper will be made available next week, and that on that White Paper the Government will be prepared to provide a day next week in order to discuss it?

Mr. Crookshank: I cannot give that assurance.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that no opportunity has been given to the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement? I should like to ask the Leader of the House when time will be given to the Secretary

of State for Scotland to explain the situation as it affects agriculture in Scotland.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Hector McNeil: May I reinforce my hon. Friend, by asking, on business, when, as is customary, the Secretary of State is going to make a comparable statement upon the implications of the February Price Review for Scottish agriculture?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): Our statements are so comparable that they are identical.

ALLOCATION OF TIME MOTION (MR. SPEAKER'S RULING)

Mr. Speaker: Before I leave the Chair and the House goes into Committee on the National Health Service Bill, I have a short statement to make that, I think, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) was about to ask me to make.
Earlier this morning I was asked to give a Ruling on the meaning of certain words in the Allocation of Time Motion which we were then discussing. The words were these:
After the day on which this Order is made, any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill shall be the first Government Order of the day shall be considered an allotted day for the purposes of this Order.
The point put to me was, in brief: as we were then in this calendar day, today could not be the first allotted day. This contention was urged by certain hon. Members, who supported their arguments with precedents which I had not had time to consider, but as it also formed the basis of a Motion for the Adjournment of the debate, moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), I had to rule on the submission at once.
I ruled, basing myself mainly on Standing Order No. 1, that the point was not valid. I promised to consider more carefully the precedents cited, and to make a considered statement at this time. I wish to express my gratitude to the hon. Members who kindly furnished me with their authorities and put their views in writing to me. All these I have carefully considered, with other material.
The difficulty arises from the distinction between a calendar day and a Parliamentary day, in that in our practice the word "day" means a Parliamentary day or Sitting, unless clearly otherwise defined. For example, when in 1936 the House met on Wednesday, 22nd July, and rose after 1.0 a.m. on Friday. 24th July, that counted as one Sitting or one Parliamentary day, and the phrase "this day," which was used in deferring many of the Orders of the Day of 22nd July, came eventually to mean Friday, 24th July. It is only when the House goes on sitting beyond the hour of 2.30 that the words "any day after the day on which this Order is made" mean a day two or more calendar days later than the day on which the House began to consider the Order.
Therefore, in this instance, the Sitting or Parliamentary day which began at 2.30 today represents a day later than the day on which this Order was made, which was the day or Sitting that began yesterday.
In 1912 the Guillotine Resolution for the Welsh Church Bill was passed at 5.0 a.m. at a Sitting which began on 28th November. On Friday, 29th November, the Bill was not the first Order of the Day, and that Friday was not the first allotted day (as the Journal shows), although the Bill was in fact taken during that Friday. This was a point put by the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). The Bill was put down as the first Order on Thursday, 5th December, which was therefore the first allotted day. That case was, therefore, quite consistent with the present practice. The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), quoted the Military Service Act, 1939, when a different form of words was used in the Guillotine Motion, but that was because it was wished to start an allotted day immediately after the Guillotine Resolution was passed.
It follows from these circumstances that the House can now properly proceed to consider the National Health Service Bill in Committee on the first allotted day.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE BILL

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 9th April].

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

4.11 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker having just given a very important Ruling and having now left the Chair, I should like to make this comment on his Ruling, for which I am sure the Committee is very grateful and would no doubt accept. Is it not a very odd circumstance, and a reflection upon Mr. Speaker, that the Government should apparently have anticipated Mr. Speaker's Ruling by having printed on today's Order Paper today as the First Allotted Day, without knowing what Mr. Speaker's Ruling would be? Second, is it not also a great reflection on the rights of the House and on the responsibilities of Mr. Speaker that the Leader of the House should have announced as part of next week's business that the House will proceed to the consideration of this Bill on the Report stage, on the assumption that Mr. Speaker would give a Ruling of which the Government could not possibly have had any knowledge?

The Chairman: That is certainly a very interesting point, which I cannot possibly answer. It is not a point of order.

Clause 1.—(CHARGES FOR CERTAIN DRUGS, MEDICINES AND APPLIANCES.)

Mr. J. D. Murray: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, after "provided" to insert:
at a colliery medical centre or.
I should like first to thank the Minister for his courtesy in sending me a letter about certain Amendments standing in my name and that of my hon. Friends. I agree with him when he says in his letter that there may be some misunderstanding, and my Amendment should enable the right hon. Gentleman to clear up the points in question in a very short time. I should like to read from the Minister's letter the passage to which I am referring. He says:


Taking first colliery medical centres, these are, as I understand it, provided by the Miners' Welfare Commission and are in no sense a part of the Hospital Service provided under the National Health Service Act. Clause 1 of the Bill provides for charges only to patients getting medicines, etc., as hospital out-patients in the National Health Service, and no question could therefore arise of a charge under this Clause at a colliery medical centre.
4.15 p.m.
Will the Minister give an assurance that, if any workman sustains an injury in or about a mine and attends a colliery medical centre but does not attend or is not detained in a hospital, he will be able to receive a truss, an elastic stocking, bandage or knee cap, or any other appliance free of charge? Judging from his letter, I should think that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give me that assurance.
We agree with the other portion of the Minister's letter, in which he says that a hospital under Section 79 of the 1946 National Health Service Act includes a convalescent home and a rehabilitation centre. We therefore agree that the Amendments dealing with that are fully covered. If the Minister can give me the assurance for which I ask, I shall not detain the Committee any longer.

Mr. Tom Brown: This Amendment seeks to remove some doubts from our minds. It is not my intention to deal with colliery medical centres, which have grown up consequent upon the improvement made in connection with what we call first-aid attendance, but there is another factor I wish to put to the Minister. If he is not able to include this in the Bill, I hope he will at least draft the regulations so that men are not made chargeable for drugs. It will be well-known to mining Members that, unfortunately, some men are pinned underground, either by machinery or by falls, of rock, and so on.
In recent years, consequent upon the intensive mechanisation in the mines, there have been cases where a man who has had the misfortune to be caught in machinery has been injected with morphia—which is a very expensive drug which has to be administered by an expert—so that the doctor, who has had to go underground, could amputate a limb before the man could be released. In the event of any man being so trapped underground as to necessitate the administering

of morphia before an amputation, will the Minister give us an assurance that, whatever quantity of morphia is administered, the drug will not have to be paid for by the man?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Harry Crookshank): I am much obliged to the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Murray) for what he has said. It struck me that as there were several Amendments which we are not discussing now on the same point, and that, so far as I could see, they had nothing to do with the Bill, because the Bill did not touch them in any way, I thought it might save him and his hon. Friends trouble if I gave him the information which I sent to him.
The point which I must emphasise in the first part of my letter was that—as is clear if one carefully reads the first part of this Clause—all that is referred to in the Clause is hospital and specialist services under Part II of the principal Act, that is to say, services which come within the National Health Service and anything that is without that Service is, therefore, not affected in any way by this Bill.
It is quite clear, I understand, that colliery medical centres are altogether outside the Health Service and, therefore, they do not come within the ambit of this Bill. These centres, I understand, are provided by the Miners' Welfare Commission—although it has had, I think, a new name recently or is about to have a new name; the Bill is not yet through so we do not know whether it has a new name or not—but, in the meantime, we all know the body to which I am referring which provides these medical centres and anything that goes on there will not be affected by this Bill.
With regard to trusses and the various other items to which the hon. Gentlemen referred, and which are provided at the centres by the Miners' Welfare Fund, they do not come within the Bill. These centres are not hospitals within the meaning of the Bill. What the Bill does is to charge for appliances at hospitals. These are not hospitals and, therefore, the Bill cannot authorise any charge for them. That, I understand, is the answer to the questions.
I am prepared to look at the matter again and make myself quite certain that


that is the case. The hon. Gentleman was good enough to ask me about this point a quarter-of-an-hour ago and that is the best information I can give him at the moment. I think that what he wants is secured, but I will certainly make myself fully satisfied about it. On the point about morphia being injected, I do not think that there can be any question at all of payment, because the colliery medical centre does not come within the Bill. I cannot, therefore, accept the Amendment because its insertion would be out of place.

Mr. Murray: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, but I wish he could have gone a little further, because trusses and other appliances are not supplied by the Miners' Welfare Commission, and that is why we are anxious about this point. However, since I have the assurance—

Mr. Crookshank: I thought that the hon. Gentleman said that they had been. It was on that basis that I was answering. If I misunderstood him, I will look at it again from the point of view he has put.

Mr. T. Brown: In drawing up his regulations would the right hon. Gentleman make specific reference to the administration of morphia to men trapped underground?

Mr. Crookshank: I think that that is hardly necessary. It is free treatment. I do not think this would be necessary, because that point is amply safeguarded.

Mr. Murray: Since the Minister has given an assurance that he will again look at this matter and endeavour to meet us on this point, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Hector McNeil: I beg to move in page 1, line 12, after "hospital," to insert:
or is a person who is receiving benefit, or is a dependant of a person receiving benefit, under the National Insurance Acts, 1946 to 1951, or any statutory modification thereof.
It will be obvious to the Committee that this is an Amendment of some substance. If we were not following the present arrangement, I should want to take some considerable time to develop my argument. The effect of the Amendment is to provide that the people falling under the National Insurance Acts should

be exempted from the charges applicable under this Clause. The reasoning is very plain. There are several special sections of people who ought to receive particular attention.
I am glad to see that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) is in his place, because I remember that when we were discussing a similar provision in 1949, the right hon. Gentleman went so far—I am summarising what he said, but I shall not misrepresent him—as to say that we had an implied contract to some 12 million people under the National Health Insurance Acts who had previously received all drugs and medicines free. Now we are in the curious position that the situation has become much worse because the same people are now paying much more in actual contributions but will receive much less. I cannot argue to the Committee that there is a contract, but I am arguing that there is an implied contract with a great range of people all of them falling under the National Insurance Acts.
Let me point to another example. Under Section 75 of the National Insurance Industrial Injuries Act, 1946, the Minister may make arrangement to secure the provision and maintenance free of charge or at a reduced charge of equipment or appliances for any person otherwise under the Act. I am again summarising the position. In this event, the Act did not operate, but that Clause was written in, and it was written in by agreement. It was not even discussed in Committee. It was written in because the whole Committee at that time recognised that they could not forsake the practice in relation to the provision of appliances to men sustaining industrial injuries.
The practice had been that under the Act many of the employers' insurance schemes provided appliances, but, as many of my trade union colleagues will be able to tell us from their own experience, often a limited insurance meant that appliances were not supplied and the employer would make an ex gratia payment to provide them. There was sometimes an underlying reason for that. The employer had an interest in seeing that an injured man had such an appliance because that, in turn, reduced the compensation because with the appliance he could undertake work and without it he could not.
4.30 p.m.
At this stage, I suggest that history and reasoning is scarcely germane to our conclusions. The point is that if this Clause goes through in its unamended form we shall take a leap back of 40 years. We shall penalise people who, for some 40 years, have had provision made for them, first, by their employers, then under the old workmen's compensation scheme and, later, under the 1946 Act. I suggest that the Committee will not lightly commit itself to such an obvious injustice. The argument can be developed for any person falling under any of the National Health Acts. We plead with the Committee to accept the Amendment to make sure that a highly improper penalty is not imposed upon these people by the Bill.

Mr. Iain MacLeod: I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would answer one point, which I raise for elucidation. The sort of speech that he has made is not new. On other occasions these identical points were put by my hon. Friends to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan). I believe that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) put precisely these points to him. The reply of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale was that there was nothing whatever in them. Does the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) accept that we were right then or that his right hon. Friend was correct? He cannot have it both ways.

Mr. McNeil: If the hon. Gentleman had not been so keen to impose a Guillotine Motion on the Committee I might have had time to argue this. I can only say that, at this stage, I am not concerned, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) would not want me to be concerned, with an old part of history or with my reputation. I am trying to save people who will suffer a gross injustice under the Bill.

Mr. Harold Finch: I support the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil). Many of the persons who come under the National Insurance Act, particularly those suffering from prolonged sickness and permanent incapacity, depend for their maintenance upon the benefits under the insurance scheme and

it will be apprepriated that in view of the increased cost of living the charges will mean a heavier burden for them and will create considerable hardship.
In seeking to justify the charges now sought to be imposed, the Minister of Health, on Second Reading, stated that the charges must be related to what he termed "obvious abuses to be rectified." My hon. Friends have very effectively answered the charges about abuses, and, although abuses may exist here and there, one of the most important things to emerge from the debate was that very little responsibility for abuses lay upon the individual patient. If any doubts still linger in the minds of the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary about so-called abuses perhaps some of us in the few minutes we have on this proposal can disabuse them about the position.
I want to refer, in particular, to the industrially disabled. Where can the issue of abuses arise in connection with injured workmen? I want to follow through the procedure from the time the workman is injured until he gets his treatment.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: rose—

Mr. Finch: I do not want the Guillotine to fall on my head. I wish to deal with this point, and I cannot give way, for the time is too short.
From the time he is injured the workman comes within the Industrial Injuries Act. He is tied by the provisions of the Act. He has first to report the accident, then he has to have medical attention, then a report has to be made to the Ministry of National Insurance—

Mr. Powell: On a point of order, Sir Charles. The hon. Member is referring to industrial injuries and disablement. I submit that it does not arise on the Amendment, which refers only to persons, or dependants of persons, receiving benefit under the National Insurance Act. Is not the hon. Gentleman out of order in referring to persons coming under the Industrial Injuries Act?

The Chairman: I gather that that is covered in the title to the Act.

Mr. Finch: Yes, Sir Charles, the Industrial Injuries Act is part of the National Insurance Act and these people come within the National Insurance scheme.
To revert to what I was saying, a report is submitted to the Ministry of National Insurance, so there can be no doubt that the man is suffering from a disability due to and arising out of his employment. I am particularly concerned about the position of a man who has been on industrial injury benefit for six months and is suffering a permanent incapacity. He comes up for examination by a medical tribunal with regard to his eligibility for disablement pension.
In such cases many medical assessors have recommended injured men to receive treatment at local hospitals. The tendency of recent legislation has been to try to get workmen back into employment at a reasonably early date and every facility has been given to men to get back to work without charges being imposed upon them. That has been the tendency even with insurance companies in the last 10 to 15 years.
Employers in the mining industry assisted men to get back to work at a reasonably early date. To impose a charge on a workman injured in an accident due to and arising from his employment is a vicious principle to adopt and something which has been alien to the men in the mining industry for many years.
I will cite one or two types of case that arise in the mining industry. Thousands of men are suffering from dermatitis owing to exposure to dust and liquids and the filth and dirt underground. There were 7,763 successful claims in the industry in six months in 1948 from men suffering from this disease. Often when these matters come before the assessment board the men are immediately advised to get certain lotions at the local hospital.
If this Clause remains as it is such injured workmen will have to pay the 1s. charge very frequently to obtain the treatment for an industrial disease arising out of and in the course of their work, something which they have never experienced before. When the miners realise that a charge is to be put upon them in relation to a disability arising out of and in the course of their employment there will be a wave of bitterness in the coalfields.
Many men are suffering from beatknee—many miners working in low seams

get inflammation of the knee—and they often attend local hospitals for treatment. If the Clause is not altered they will be charged the prescription fee. Particularly in South Wales, there are also thousands of men suffering from pneumoconiosis. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary has seen any of the seriously disabled pneumoconiosis sufferers struggling up the hills of our valleys, panting for breath, to get relief in the form of drug or medicine from the local hospital.
Many cases arise daily in South Wales, and these men are now likely to be charged the prescription fee for the drug or medicine which they get to ease their pain as a result of a disease arising out of and in the course of their work. It is not a question of obvious abuses; it is a question of our indebtedness to the miners who hew the coal upon which our national economy depends.
I would put it to the Minister and to the Parliamentary Secretary that they should weigh very carefully, even at this last moment, the advantages of this so-called financial retrenchment on the one hand, and losing the good will of the nation, at least so far as the miners are concerned, on the other. They should weigh this so-called saving of a few million pounds against the possibility of creating hostility in the trade union movement of this country. I would ask them to consider this parsimonious miserable, niggardly policy and the possibility of losing out-put from the mines as a result of it.
Reference has been made to abdominal belts. Many men in the mining industry suffer from forms of hernia and strain due to their employment underground, and a charge is now to be made for the abdominal belts they need. That will create considerable feeling among the people in the coalfields. I would refer the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to Section 75 of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946. I do not know whether the hon. Lady has had any consultations with the Minister of National Insurance on this matter, but that Section empowers the Minister of National Insurance to supply appliances to injured workmen out of the Industrial Injuries fund. That has never been exercised because the responsibility has been carried out under the Health Scheme.
I want to know whether, if we fail on this Amendment, we can receive an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister of National Insurance that the Government will put into operation the Regulation for which power is given under Section 75, which reads as follows:
The Minister may make arrangements to secure the provision and maintenance, free of charge or at a reduced charge, of equipment and appliances for any person who, by reason of the loss of a limb or otherwise, is in the need of them as the result of any injury or disease against which he was insured under this Act, and in connection with the provision or maintenance of any equipment or appliances for any person under this Section may pay to that person such expenses incurred by him as the Minister may determine.
Here is a Section which gives the Minister of National Insurance power to assist the industrially disabled. I would point out that the industrial workers of this country, and particularly the miners, have met their obligations. Many of them have sustained accidents while working on a Saturday as they were called upon to do by the nation. They have met their obligations and I want the Minister seriously to consider the position. If the industrial workers are to be called upon to pay this charge for appliances, or to pay the shilling for prescriptions, there will be a feeling of bitterness and resentment among them. Here is a golden opportunity for the Minister to rise to the occasion and to assist these men who deserve from the Government all the help they can get.

4.45 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Walter Elliot: The arguments which have been advanced are most interesting and all the more so since we have had them argued in the opposite sense. The right hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) did give me notice on a previous occasion that he would refer to that. It is very interesting, because we have had the opinion of, not the last Minister of Health in the Labour Government—that transient and embarrassed penitent—but of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). He brought up the fundamental change which, he states, he made in the Health Service by moving from a contributory to a largely non-contributory basis and it is from that that all this difficulty stems.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: No.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: That is certainly true. I will quote in a moment the words of the ex-Minister of Health on the matter. It is on that that the Minister of Health relies in repudiating the very conditions of the contractual obligations to which the right hon. Member for Greenock referred. Let us take the reference, which was on 9th December, 1949. On examining the proposals I had been struck by exactly the same contention which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have been putting forward. It seemed to me that tuberculosis patients were being put in a worse position than before. The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale repudiated this in the strongest possible terms he said:
Nor is it true to say, as the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) said, that we are putting the National Health Service contributor in a worse position than he has been in since the beginning of the National Health Service Act.
That was when the House was debating this very proposal that the charge should be prescribed by Regulation by the Minister of Health of the day. The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale went on:
That is not true.
It was not true, he said, that the power to impose these charges and the imposing of these charges put a beneficiary in a worse position than he had been in before.
What is actually happening at the present time is that the National Health Service is giving him a far wider range of services than he had under the National Health Insurance Act; therefore, even if this were imposed, what would be left to the National Health contributor would be a far wider range of service than was ever available before."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1949; Vol. 470, c. 2261.]
There was a slight interchange between us at the time as to whether this proposal to impose these charges was a popular or an unpopular move with the voters and, particularly—oddly enough—with the local government voters of the country. The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale contended that it was a popular move with the voters of the country. He went on:
It is not correct to say it is only on the side of bottled medicine that some of the abuse has taken place—it is aspirins, bandages, and so forth, costing less than a 1s., which, in a large number of cases, would have been purchased by the patient—… That is where the abuse arises.

Dr. H. Morgan: Quite true.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Well, I am only quoting some of the arguments which were adduced to the Committee, particularly by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch). The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
It is no use my hon. Friends telling me that this is not the case, because"—
and this deals particularly with the last point about out-put and so on raised by the hon. Member for Bedwellty—
this proposal has not, in fact, been received with much indignation, as it is generally accepted that there is an awareness of the abuse which had been taking place."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1949; Vol. 470, c. 2263.]

Mr. Bevan: At the hospitals.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I leave that to the right hon. Gentleman who made the speech. It was he who referred to the charge he was about to impose by Regulation. I am anxious not to take up the time of the Committee—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member wishes the debate to go on I am perfectly willing to take him on at length. I am quoting the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale on the point we were discussing—

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: The right hon. Member was talking about hospitals.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We were discussing the general question. The right hon. Member for Greenock raised the general question of whether a contributor was being put in a worse position by this than he was in before, and he said that he was. I am quoting the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, who said that he is not. And I say, finally, that all these things arise out of the fact that the Committee is not here discussing the actual proposal but the power to make such a proposal.
The proper moment at which to raise points—no doubt very interesting and important—such as that which was raised by the last speaker as to the particular allowances to be made for those injured in the course of industrial warfare, is when the Regulations are laid. The House of Commons will have an opportunity of doing so. We all recognise that there are casualties in industrial

warfare which are as deserving of sympathy as the casualties in other fields of struggle and endeavour. The general principle has already been argued. Powerful and cogent arguments were brought forward by the then Minister of Health in the quotations which I have given, to show that the contention which has since been adopted by my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Health is the right one.

Mr. Bevan: The situation is not really as confused as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has represented it. He is right in saying that what we did was to substitute a non-contractual scheme for a contractual scheme, and a non-contributory scheme for a contributory one. It is also true to say that under the National Health Service Act, as it was conceived and carried out by the Labour Government until last year, the range of benefits given was infinitely wider than was ever provided under the old National Health scheme. There is no doubt about that.
I have said on many occasions that one of the reasons why the Regulations were never made under the 1949 Act was that, in respect of certain of the benefits, they would have put the old insured contributor in a worse condition than he had been since the formation of the National Health Service Act. I have explained that before, but hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite always go back to the instance where power was taken to frame the Regulations, and never to the precedent subsequent to that, that the Regulations were never framed. If all they are anxious to do is to give me the flattery of imitation they will take these powers and will never make the Regulations.
I return this to right hon. Gentlemen opposite: whatever may have been said about the abuses of the chemist's shops—and I am not prepared myself to say that there are not even now, and will not be for a very long time, abuses in the chemist's shop—the question is whether this is the most effective way of dealing with them. They can be dealt with in other ways. It does not seem to me that the most effective way is to punish the helpless patient. Quite often the general practitioner is responsible.
It was never in my mind that we should apply this principle to the hospitals. We


are dealing here with drugs and appliances provided under the Hospital specialist service. We have already asked the Parliamentary Secretary a question about this, and we have not had a reply. She is under an obligation to tell us whether there is any evidence of abuse by the specialist service in the hospitals. It seems to me disastrous to compel industrially injured persons, or any other persons who have to go to the hospitals for drugs or appliances, to pay for them. That does set the clock back. Indeed, it has no other object except a purely punitive one.
We cannot reduce abuses in this way, unless the Parliamentary Secretary is prepared to tell the Committee that the Ministry of Health have information that, in the hospital service itself, the specialist abuses the service by giving unnecessary appliances and medicine. If she says that, will she provide the Committee with instances where it has occurred? Furthermore, has she reported those cases to the Central Health Services Advisory Council for advice, so that they may advise the Minister how to deal with these abuses, if such have occurred? If one or two instances can be shown to have happened, it is the clumsiest possible remedy to punish all those who have to use the specialist service, in order to deal with a few specialists and stop an abuse—if there are such cases.
I am very anxious not to talk too much about this matter, and I would not have spoken if I had not been challenged. One of the reasons why I did not proceed with those Regulations was because of my experience, which is not very limited in this matter. Long before I became Minister of Health we used to have local schemes to supplement National Health Insurance. In my native town of Tredegar we had one of the pioneer schemes in Great Britain. It was one which employed Dr. Cronin, although he afterwards abused it; I do not mean professionally, but in literature.
We had those schemes—why? Because the range of benefits provided under National Health Insurance was too limited. All over the country miners and other workers devised local supplementary schemes. When the National Health Service came into operation most of those schemes were wound up because the range of benefits under the Health Ser-

vice was much wider and had assimilated all those local schemes. If we are now to play fast and loose with the National Health Service, these men may have to consider whether they ought not themselves to resurrect some of those schemes to assist people who will have to make these payments to the hospitals. Once more we shall be getting back to the situation in which the industrial workers will have to pay twice, once through the taxation system, and, of course, through the 10d. contribution which still remains, and they will have to provide these supplementary schemes themselves.
Although the Minister may not feel it possible at the moment to accept the Amendment—I hope he does—when he comes to frame the Regulations he is under no obligation to include these people at all. He can leave them all out. The right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) is not correct in saying that the time to raise these points is when the Regulations come before the House. We shall not be able to do anything but accept or reject the Regulations. I am not quarrelling with that position, but I am pointing out that that is not the time to raise these points because we shall not be able to amend the Regulations. If hon. Members opposite are enthusiastic about precedents which I have set they can follow my precedent and let the Regulations fall.

Mr. McNeil: In 36 minutes the Guillotine will fall on this Clause. I wonder whether I might plead with the Parliamentary Secretary that it might be for the convenience of the Committee if she could now reply and say whether she can accept the Amendment. We can move on in that case. If she does not accept it, we can make good use of the time that remains.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Richard Fort: I shall not detain the Committee for more than two minutes, but I am sure it is the feeling of every hon. Member here that, working, as we are, under the Guillotine, we should now, at this stage, take note of real Committee points. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The point I want to bring to the notice of the Committee is to suggest an alternative to what the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) had to say about the difficulties with which we are undoubtedly presented now, and have been presented in previous Measures.
We should allow, in the benefits which are to be paid under the Industrial Injuries Act or under the National Insurance Act, those benefits which will take charge of the additional costs which we all recognise are coming. That would have the advantage of our being sure that those benefits will go to those most in need because they are drawing benefits from those schemes. That is an alternative to everyone benefiting, and it can be done by adjusting the benefits under the general National Insurance Act.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): This Amendment is centred around those people who are covered by the National Insurance Acts, and, we heard yesterday both from the right hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) and also from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), a reference to the old Insurance Act and the assertion that these new charges would be breaking an obligation. I suggest that even though the former Government may not have implemented the Act which they passed on the 1s. prescription charge, it does not in any way invalidate what we believe is an equally sound argument today, namely, the one quoted by my right hon. Friend when he insisted, we believe quite rightly, that the new noncontributory arrangement could not honestly and fairly be compared with the old contributory one.
In the first place the old benefits were for the insuree alone and not for his family. The new benefits cover his family. They are much wider, and only 10d. of the 9s. 5d. paid by an adult male and his employer in the weekly insurance contribution goes towards the National Health Service. So it is in no sense an insurance, and only a very small contribution is paid towards the Service. There is a further point against the suggestion in this Amendment: that those who draw benefits depend on having fulfilled certain contribution conditions, and if they do not qualify and, therefore, do not get their benefit, they would be far worse off, or, if they are people not covered by insurance, they would be far worse off than those whom this Amendment seeks to exempt.
There was the third point raised about industrial injuries. I can assure the Committee that my right hon. Friend has been in full consultation with the Minister of

National Insurance on this point. The question arises whether the powers of Section 75 of the National Insurance Industrial Injuries Act should be used to meet wholly or in part any charges that are made under these provisions. This was presumably considered by the previous Government in connection with the charges for teeth and spectacles, and that Government evidently decided not to use the powers so provided. We have held that there has never been any differentiation in the matter of treatment or appliances between the industrially injured and other sick industrial workers, whether a man was injured either in the course of his employment or outside, or whether he was under the old Workmen's Compensation Act.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, Section 75 of the Industrial Injuries Act was put in to meet a possible gap before the National Health Service Act came into operation, but, in fact, that did not arise and it was not necessary to implement those provisions. However, it was not put in, as we believe from the records of the drafting of those provisions, as a matter of principle to provide that better facilities should be available to the industrially injured than to those injured in other circumstances.
We recognise that those who suffer industrial injury already draw higher benefits by virtue of their industrial injury insurance. They draw higher benefits than the ordinary sick or disabled who may be suffering the same disability, the same hardship, the same pain, but have not been in that position by virtue of their industrial employment. They draw their ordinary sickness benefit but not the higher industrial injury benefit.
Therefore, to make a dispensation in regard to those who are drawing higher benefits to the detriment of those who are drawing lesser benefits is not wholly justified in our view. We believe that throughout these regulations—and, indeed, the regulations imposed for charges last year by the previous Government—the principle of hardship and the right of need as the means by which a concession should be made, which is decided by the National Assistance Board, should continue to operate under this Clause. For those reasons we do not feel we can accept the Amendment.

Mr. T. Brown: I am much obliged for the statement made by the hon. Lady, but she has failed to make it clear to the Committee that those unfortunate men who draw benefits under the Personal Injuries Act are paying extra contributions over and above other people. It is as well that this should be made known, because the hon. Lady is misleading the Committee, I hope unintentionally.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: No; I think I dealt with that point.

Mr. Brown: These men are paying increased contributions.

Amendment negatived.

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper:

In page 1, line 17, at end, add:
except in cases where it can be shown that the replacement or repair is due to a fault in the appliance.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): Mr. Messer.

Mr. Frederick Messer: This is so obvious an Amendment that I know it will be accepted, and I will not trouble to move it.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Somerville Hastings: The Minister has told us repeatedly that the object of these charges is to save money, so that more can be spent on the National Health Service. I suggest that between now and the Report stage he should consider economising in the Service and having more money to spend as a result. I suggest also that where appliances are prescribed while the patient is in hospital there shall be no charge paid. I believe the right hon. Gentleman would save money in that way, because patients would be able to leave hospital much more quickly than would otherwise be possible.
Medicine is not an exact science. No doctor can say that a patient was not fit to go to work yesterday or is fit to go today, or is not fit to go today but will most certainly be fit to go tomorrow. A lot depends on the condition of the patient, where he is going, and on the patient himself, and whether he really wants to go or not. If a heavy charge

is to come upon the patient should he leave hospital tomorrow or a little later, but not if he remains there, he will tend to keep his place in hospital longer than otherwise would be the case.
Let me, briefly, give an example. These things happen every day in hospital. Imagine that a person has a severe injury to his foot and needs a surgical boot. Until the foot has healed, the boot cannot be ordered. But if the patient is to be told that by staying a little longer in hospital he would save £3, he would be very much inclined to stay a little longer if he can persuade his surgeon to allow him to remain.
The same thing applies to other appliances. After a severe illness, people sometimes lose all their hair. The Parliamentary Secretary will be very well aware of how a woman in that position would feel and how reluctant she would be to leave hospital until a wig was provided. But if, in addition to leaving hospital without a wig, there is to be added the cost of £2 10s. or something like that, such a person would be induced to try to persuade whoever is responsible for her care in hospital to keep her a little longer.
I put these suggestions very briefly—we are short of time—to the Parliamentary Secretary as a means by which, without being in any way hard on a patient, money can be saved for the provision of extra facilities in the Service.

Mr. Powell: A good deal of the discussion which has taken place on four days on this first Clause has been concerned with special types of hardship which might arise by virtue of the charges which it enables to be imposed. As each separate category is contemplated, whether it be the tuberculous, the diabetic or those we have just been considering, whose power of earning is temporarily or permanently at an end by reason of sickness or disablement, a very strong case appears to be able to be made out why they should be exempted from the charge.
Nevertheless, I believe that my right hon. Friend has taken the right course, and, indeed, the only practicable course, in setting his face against any type of special exemption. We can never draw a boundary line on one side of which there will be hardship, and on the other side of which there will be no hardship,


by endeavouring to define the type of case. It is only by ascertaining where hardship in practice, arises in the individual circumstances of the person upon whom the charge is imposed, that the impact of these charges can, where necessary be alleviated.

Mrs. Braddock: Means test.

Mr. Powell: There is a means test involved, as I shall show the hon. Lady in a moment.

Mrs. Braddock: That is an extension of a very bad means test.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Powell: I shall be discussing that in a moment.
For example, to consider the chronically sick patient who often requires medicine from an out-patient department, at regular intervals, it may well be that the regular necessity of paying the prescription charge would involve hardship. But it involves hardship not because of the chronic nature of the sickness, but because of the circumstances of the individual patient. Therefore, I believe that my right hon. Friend has been right in using the machinery which was already provided for this purpose.
When, in the first day in Committee on the Bill, I pointed out that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite had themselves commended the National Assistance Board for this very purpose, the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop), sought to draw a distinction between the use of the Assistance Board where a single payment or a largish payment had to be made—as for spectacles and teeth—and the use of the Assistance Board to alleviate hardship arising out of payments for prescriptions.
That brings me to a very interesting and important point, on which I should like to secure the help of the right hon. Gentleman the former Minister of Health. We are all familiar ad nauseam with the statement that the charges for prescriptions under Part IV of the principal Act were introduced in 1949 either with no intention that they should ever be implemented, or else that it was subsequently found impracticable to implement them. That is the standard position of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.
What I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) is this. Why, when he came to the House, 18 months after the Lords Amendment of 1949, with the Bill which is now the 1951 Bill, did he then take powers to enable the Assistance Board to make payments in respect of charges for prescriptions? He did that, not in the first flush of his enthusiasm for the Amendment which had been sent down from another place at the end of 1949, but after 18 months' investigation of the administrative possibilities.

Mr. Iain MacLeod: After the resignation.

Mr. Powell: The right hon. Gentleman then still believed both that it was administratively practicable—otherwise he was wasting the time of the House and overloading the Statute Book with nonsensical provisions—and that the Assistance Board was the appropriate means of dealing with hardship arising out of the necessity of payments for prescriptions.
Unless, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman and those who supported him—those who voted Section 4 into the 1951 Act—can give another explanation of what that provision is doing, they agree with my right hon. Friend that the Assistance Board is the right way, and the only right way, of dealing with any hardship which may result under the Clause.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: We have had a very detailed analysis by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), who considers himself an expert on this subject, of how to tackle hardship. He has told us that the Government believe that they must do this in a practical way; that the only thing to do is to look at hardship as it arises and to deal with it.
But during our long debates on the Clause, we have had from this side of the Committee case after case brought before the Minister of Health of where hardship is arising. We have had no answer whatever. We have had the very practical point of the patient on the waiting list, who cannot get into a hospital and who, because of that, has to pay for any drugs, medicines or appliances that he might need while waiting, through no fault of his own. What answer have we had on that practical point of hardship?

Mr. Messer: The Guillotine.

Mrs. Castle: The Guillotine is the practical answer to our practical cases of hardship.
We have had the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings), a very practical case of hardship, in which he has pointed out that if a patient vacates hospital in order to leave a bed for someone else he has to pay for an appliance he would get free if he were able to remain in hospital. Are these not practical points? Can the Minister say that he is a practical man in dealing with this question of hardship? So complicated is the problem of sickness and health and of human need, that we cannot draw a line in a devious way like this. The simple answer is that we should not have the Clause at all, because it is a complete indictment of the whole attempt to deal with the problem.
I wish to raise a very practical point on hardship and ask for a specific assurance from the Minister of Health. He made a statement on Second Reading, and I want to tell him that, although he may not be aware of the fact, that statement is untrue; I hope he will give an assurance that he will look into the matter. I hope he will also look into the points about hardship which have been raised by hon. Members on this side of the Committee who know where the shoe really pinches.
I want to raise the question of persons receiving National Assistance. It has always been argued by hon. Members opposite that when they did their cheeseparing on the social services they would never allow the burden to fall on the most severe cases. Therefore, in the Second Reading debate we had the Minister giving us the following very specific assurance:
There will be no charge for hospital appliances in the case of children under 16 or in full-time attendance at school or to persons in receipt of National Assistance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th March, 1952; Vol. 498, c. 850.]
If the right hon. Member had not been in such a hurry with the Guillotine, this is a point of interpretation which some of us on this side of the Committee would like to have clarified by specific Amendments to the Clause. I was prepared, when the right hon. Gentleman

gave the assurance, to accept that it was expressing his intention, but the trouble with all the debates on this Bill has been that hon. and right hon. Members opposite really do not know anything about the Health Service or how it works, or the financial arrangements of less well to do members of the community. They are arguing in ignorance, and the right hon. Gentleman is arguing in ignorance, just as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell)—whom I understand always refuses to debate the question in his constituency with my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop)—is in ignorance.
The position unless the right hon. Gentleman issues new Regulations or a substantial administrative instruction to the National Assistance Board, is that it is not true that persons on National Assistance automatically will get appliances free. It is true that in the Bill machinery is provided whereby they can get their prescriptions reimbursed and a person on National Assistance, having got a receipt from the chemist, can take it to the post office to get his bob back, but it is not true that persons on National Assistance automatically will get a surgical corset, an elastic stocking, or a wig free.
Under the Determination of Need Regulations a certain amount of capital may be ignored when assessing hardship, and a widow may have £100 in the bank as her last resource, the last safeguard of her independence, a sense of reliance and of decency, perhaps a wee nest egg to use if her children need something. But, if she has £100 in the bank, she will have to pay out of that capital for the appliance. I ask the right hon. Gentleman what steps he intends to take to honour this specific assurance he gave the House on Second Reading. It is a great blot on this country if, in a period when relaxations are being given in regard to Income Tax and financial relaxations here and there to people who are not down to their last £100, these inroads should be made into the savings of widows and others on National Assistance.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman does not mean that to happen and will see that it does not happen. I hope that if


the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary replies she will be able specifically to redeem the honour of her right hon. Friend in this matter and let us have a guarantee that, at any rate on this question, hon. Members opposite will do something to retract their reputations on this question of hardship, because their reputations are already so tarnished that they cannot stand this further blot.

Mr. Fort: I wish to call attention to Clause 6 (2), which deals with hardship questions and National Assistance—

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): The hon. Member should not take time to make another speech.

Mr. Iain MacLeod: I am sorry that I mis-timed the peroration of the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle), and she will not expect me to deal with the relative ignorance of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I wish to ask for an answer from the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. James Simmons: On a point of order. Is the hon. Member speaking in order to protect the Parliamentary Secretary?

The Deputy-Chairman: We must not waste time.

Mr. MacLeod: I was speaking on the Motion—

Mr. Simmons: We have only five minutes—

Mr. MacLeod: The hon. Lady has asked a specific question of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, and I wish to put a question. It makes a nice change, as it leaves the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) in the clear. As far as hon. Members opposite are concerned, the real villain of the piece is not the Minister of Health but the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because all this arises from the decision—and I agree firmly with it—of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and so of Her Majesty's Government that so much money, and so much money only this year, can be given to the hospitals. It is a small point in relation to hospitals in this Clause, but a much bigger point in relation to other things to which

we are coming, and the total is something like £20 million. If that money is not found, the hospital service and the tuberculosis service and everything else in the National Health Service will go short. It is that dilemma to which hon. Members opposite have not addressed themselves, and it is that dilemma in respect of which sometime on this Clause and on all the other Clauses we must demand that they give an answer.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: I will take only two minutes—I know it is very vexatious. The hon. Members for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod) and Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), have once more deployed their philosophical approach to the social services. What they say is that if any public funds are available, if the public authority is to intervene between a citizen and the vicissitudes of life or the circumstances of the market, the individual should establish his claim to that assistance. That is their position.
There is something to be said for that as a philosophy. I profoundly disagree, but there is a great deal to be said for the argument, that if public action is required to assist an individual the individual should establish his claim to that assistance. Society has created the National Assistance Board in this country in order to investigate the position of the individual. It is an attractive proposition. It ought to be applied all round if it is to be applied at all.
There is the question of £52 million for the farmers; there is the fertiliser subsidy. There is a lot to be said for the view that a farmer should go to the Assistance Board and establish his claim before the public authority intervenes on his behalf. I understand that to be the position taken up by the hon. Members opposite. As I say, it is an attractive proposition.
For example, compensation is not given to a shareholder, it is given to a citizen. It is an attractive proposition that before compensation should be given, before a person who has shares in the gas or coal industry should be able to obtain compensation money from the State, he should go to the Assistance Board and establish his title to it. It is a very attractive proposition. We should pursue it further.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Bevan: I am afraid not now. I have only two minutes. I am perfectly prepared to take the matter up at any other time. We on these benches have never considered that compensation for expropriated property is any other than a political expedient. There is no natural right to it. Therefore, let an entitlement be claimed.
It is a most revolutionary principle and doctrine. I am not always loath to accept revolutionary principles. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Members will pursue the matter further. It is a most popular cause to have taken up. I am prepared to help them to apply it all round and see how much more Lord Woolton will be able to collect from their friends when the application is really made.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: It is a delight to reply to the specific points raised by the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle). She challenged my right hon. Friend about how he proposes to fulfil the pledge he gave in the Second Reading debate on the Bill, when he said that children under 16 years and people in receipt of National Assistance contributions or pensions in respect of war injuries should not be charged for appliances.
In the case of those receiving National Assistance, if they have a National Assistance

book they will produce it at the hospital and will receive their appliances without further charge. In respect of those people who so make a needs claim, but are not in receipt of National Assistance benefit, the same procedure will operate as now operates for dentures. If the claim is accepted, a cheque is received from the Board to pay the charges. There will be no charge at all for appliances to children.

Mr. Hastings: How will the identity of the person showing a book be determined? Identity cards are now abolished.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The hon. Member is no doubt aware that no hospital deals with a patient without having records of that patient, his treatment, name, age and address, which will tally with the records entered in the National Assistance book. In addition, there are penalties for any fraudulent misuse of the books. The records maintained in the hospitals are, we feel—

It being Twenty-four Minutes to Six o'Clock (the House having resolved itself into the Committee at six minutes past Four o'Clock), The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Order [12th April], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 305; Noes, 285.

Division No. 97.]
AYES
[5.37 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Boothby, R. J. G.
Cooper-Key, E. M.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Bossom, A. C.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)


Alpert, C. J. M.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Cranborne, Viscount


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Boyle, Sir Edward
Crookshank, Capt Rt. Hon. H. F. C.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Braine, B. R.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Arbuthnot, John
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Crouch, R. F.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Braithwaite, Lt..-Cdr G. (Bristol, N. W.)
Crowder, John E. (Finchley)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Cuthbert, W. N.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)
Brooman-White, R. C.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)


Baker, P. A. D.
Browne, Jack (Govan)
Davidson, Viscountess


Baldook, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Deedes, W. F.


Baldwin, A. E.
Bullard, D. G.
Digby, S. Wingfield


Banks, Col. C.
Bullock, Cant M.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.


Barber, A. P. L.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.


Barlow, Sir John
Herden, F. F. A.
Donner, P. W.


Baxter, A. B.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Doughty, C. J. A.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Carson, Hon. E.
Drayson, G. B.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Cary, Sir Robert
Drewe, C.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Channon, H.
Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Duthie, W. S.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Cole, Norman
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Birch, Nigel
Colegate, W. A.
Erroll, F. J.


Bishop, F. P.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Fell, A.


Black, C. W.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Finlay, Graeme




Fisher, Nigel
Leather, E. H. C.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Renton, D. L. M.


Fletcher, Walter (Bury)
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lindsay, Martin
Robertson, Sir David


Fort, R.
Linstead, H. N.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Robson-Brown, W.


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Roper, Sir Harold


Gage, C. H.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Longden, Gilbert (Harts, S. W.)
Russell, R. S.


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Low, A. R. W.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Gammans, L. D.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


George, Rt. Hon. Maj G. Lloyd
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Glyn, Sir Ralph
McAdden, S. J.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Godber, J. B.
McCallum, Major D.
Scott, R. Donald


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Scott-Miller, Comdr. R.


Gough, C. F. H.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Shepherd, William


Gower, H. R.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Graham, Sir Fergus
McKibbin, A. J.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Gridley, Sir Arnold
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Harden, J. R. E.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Snadden, W. McN.


Hare, Hon. J. H.
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Soames, Capt. C.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Speir, R. M.


Harrison, Col. Harwood (Eye)
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Harvey Air Cdre, A. V. (Macclesfield)
Markham, Major S. F.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Stanley, Capt. Han. Richard


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Marples, A. E.
Stevens, G. P.


Hay, John
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Heald, Sir Lionel
Maude, Angus
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Heath, Edward
Maudling, R.
Storey, S.


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Higgs, J. M. C.
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Mellor, Sir John
Studholme, H. G.


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Molson, A. H. E.
Sutcliffe, H.


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Teeling, W.


Hollis, M. C.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Hope, Lord John
Nicholls, Harmer
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Hopkinson, Henry
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Thorneycroft, R. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Tilney, John


Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Turner, H. F. L.


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Nutting, Anthony
Turton, R. H.


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Oakshott, H. D.
Tweedemuir, Lady


Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Odey, G. W.
Vane, W. M. F.


Hurd, A. R.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylehone)


Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Hutchison, James (Sootstoun)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Osborne, C.
Waterhouse, Capt Rt. Hon. C.


Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)
Partridge, E.
Watkinson, H. A.


Jennings, R.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Wellwood, W.


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Kaberry, D.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Keeling, Sir Edward
Pitman, I. J.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Powell, J. Enoch
Wills, G.


Lambert, Hon. G.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Lambton, Viscount
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Wood, Hon. R.


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Profumo, J. D.
York, C.


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Raikes, H. V.



Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Rayner, Brig. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:



Redmayne, E.
Mr. Butcher and Mr. Vosper.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Bacon, Miss Alice
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)


Adams, Richard
Baird, J.
Bing, G. H. C.


Albu, A. H.
Balfour, A.
Blackburn, F.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Blenkinsop, A.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bartley, P.
Blyton, W. R.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Boardman, H.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Bence, C. R.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Bann, Wedgwood
Bowden, H. W.


Awbery, S. S.
Benson, G.
Bowen, E. R.


Ayles, W. H.
Beswick, F.
Bowles, F. G.







Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hobson, C. R.
Porter, G.


Brockway, A. F.
Holman, P.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Holt, A. F.
Proctor, W. T.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Houghton, Douglas
Pryde, D. J.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hoy, J. H.
Rankin, John


Eurke, W. A.
Hubbard, T. F.
Reeves, J.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Callaghan, L. J.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Rhodes, H.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. A.


Champion, A. J.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Chapman, W. D.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvorishire)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Clunie, J.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Ross, William


Cocks, F. S.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)


Coldrick, W.
Janner, B.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Collick, P. H.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Cook, T. F.
Jager, George (Goole)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Corbel, Mrs. Freda
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Short, E. W.


Cove, W. G.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Crosland, C. A. R.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Slater, J.


Daines, P.
Keenan, W.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Kenyon, C.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Snow, J. W.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
King, Dr. H. M.
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)
Kinley, J.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Sparks, J. A.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Steele, T.


Davies, Stpehen (Merthyr)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Deer, G.
Lewis, Arthur
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Delargy, H. J.
Lindgren, G. S.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Dodds, N. N.
Lipton, Lt,-Col. M.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Donnelly, D. L.
Logan, D. G.
Swingler, S. T.


Driberg, T. E. N.
MacColl, J. E.
Sylvester, G. O.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
McGhee, H. G.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McGovern, J.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Edelman, M.
McInnes, J.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McLeavy, F.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Thurtle, Ernest


Ewart, R.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Timmons, J.


Fernyhough, E.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Field, W. J.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Tomney, F.


Fienburgh, W.
Manuel, A. C.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Finch, H. J.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mayhew, C. P.
Usborne, H. C.


Follick, M.
Mellish, R. J.
Viant, S. P.


Foot, M. M.
Messer, F.
Wallace, H. W.


Forman, J. C.
Mikardo, Ian
Watkins, T. E.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mitchison, G. R.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Freeman, John (Watford)
Monslow, W.
Weitzman, D.


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Moody, A. S.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Gibson, C. W.
Morley, R.
West, D. G.


Glanville, James
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Mart, D. L.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Moyle, A.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Malley, F. W.
Wigg, George


Grey, C. F.
Murray, J. D.
Wilcook, Group Captain C. A. B.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Nally, W.
Wilkins, W. A.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
O'Brien, T.
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Grimond, J.
Oldfield, W. H.
Williams, David (Neath)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Orbach, M.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Oswald, T.
Williams, W. R. (Droyisden)


Hamilton, W. W.
Padley, W. E.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Hannan, W.
Paget, R. T.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Hardy, E. A.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Hargreaves, A.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Pannell, Charles
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hastings, S.
Pargiter, G. A.
Wyatt, W. L.


Hayman, F. H.
Parker, J.
Yates, V. F.


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)
Paton, J.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Pearl, T. F.



Herbison, Miss M.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Popplewell, E.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Royle.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I beg to move, "That the Deputy-Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Deputy-Chairman: I cannot accept that Motion under the Guillotine. I am operating now under a Resolution of the House, and I cannot deal with such a Motion. We must now proceed to Clause 2.

Mr. Smith: I accept that position and, having accepted that, I want to add that we have scandalous grievances of which the people are not yet aware. What redress have we now to ventilate those grievances in this Committee?

The Deputy-Chairman: I would remind the hon. Member that I am bound by the orders of the House, and it is my duty to carry them out.

Mr. Smith: I was getting some legal advice, but on all these matters we do not need legal advice now. My point is that under the National Health Insurance Acts our people are paying millions of pounds into the Exchequer for the purpose of these services, and if we part with this Clause without—

The Deputy-Chairman: The Clause is now passed. We are finished with it. The hon. Member may have other times and opportunities for commenting on it, but he cannot comment on it here and now.

Mr. Smith: Let me make it quite clear that I respect the occupant of the Chair and that there is nothing personal in this, but we have got to consider the position of millions who have paid millions of pounds—

The Deputy-Chairman: I must carry out the orders of the House.

Mr. Seymour Cocks: Would it be possible to display the actual guillotine here by having it flown over from Paris?

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not deal with hypothetical questions.

Clause 2.—(CHARGES FOR DENTAL TREATMENT.)

Mr. Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 2, line 8, to leave out "or."
I do not know if it would be for the convenience of the Committee to take

this Amendment and the one in my name to line 10.

The Deputy-Chairman: Although there is another Amendment in between, I think we can discuss them together.

Mr. Crookshank: The first Amendment is really drafting. It omits the word "or" so that the Clause will read when the second Amendment is inserted (a), (b), (c) and (d). The main object of the second Amendment is to exclude from any charge the clinical examination which a patient may have and the report on it.
It struck me, as I further studied this matter and heard the different views on the subject, that it really was a reasonable proposition to say that, as we are trying to do our best for the general health of the nation in all this, it was wiser, if a charge had to be imposed, which is the object of this Clause, that the examination, at any rate, which might lead to work being done, should be free. It would encourage people to see their dentists and have the examination, quite possibly, more frequently than if they had to pay for it.
The mere fact that a person does go regularly to see a dentist, knowing he will not be charged for the examination, might prompt him to go more frequently, and the experience which we have personally, not being dentists, is that the oftener one goes, the less likely is it in the long run that any remedial action will be necessary.
I announced this change as the decision of the Government when I made my speech in the Second Reading debate, and I hope it will be acceptable to the Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Iain MacLeod: I beg to move, in page 2, line 9, to leave out from "bleeding," to the end of line 10.
Whatever its merits as an Amendment, I think we can all agree that this Amendment has a panache about it. In fact, it so excited one of my hon. Friends that he has composed a "Ballade of Parliamentary Draftsmen," of which the "punch line" at the end of each stanza is:
Leave out from 'bleeding' to end of line 10.
The point here is a small but a very real one, and as we have a practicing


dentist in the House, perhaps he will give his views upon it. It has been put to me by a number of dentists that bleeding, in this sort of case, is not always caused only by the extraction of teeth, and, as we are seeking to give an exemption in this part of Clause 2, obviously, the more we narrow the exemption by definition, the worse perhaps it is for some of the patients.
I therefore suggest that we should take out the narrowing and limiting words:
caused by the extraction of teeth
and simply leave the exemption to cover the cases, rare though they be, which, I am assured by the dentists and others, are not due to the extraction of teeth.

Mr. John Baird: I agree with what the hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod) has said, and I am very glad that he has paid attention to the dentists who have been advising him on this matter. I think it is a great pity that he did not pay attention to them on the subject of this charge, which, as every dentist knows, will ruin the teeth of the people of this country.

Mr. Crookshank: My hon. Friend who moved this Amendment has been very persuasive and, as he is supported by the technical experience of the hon. Gentleman opposite, who am I, as a layman, to say "No"? I am very happy to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 10, at the end, to insert:
or
(d) the clinical examination of a patient and any report thereon."—[Mr. Crookshank.}

Mr. Marquand: I beg to move, in page 2, line 10, at the end, to insert:
(d) a service for which the current authorised fee is not more than one pound.
This is the first opportunity we have had to discuss Clause 2 at all, and here we are making remarkably rapid progress. I hope that we shall continue in this way. When the right hon. Gentleman said just now that he was glad to listen to the expert professional advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird), and asked who was he, as a layman, to contradict advice of that kind, I was

hoping that he would take the same attitude about the Amendment which I am now moving.
I am still in doubt about the origins of the proposal for the charge for dental treatment. It really did come to us as a great shock, and we heard the announcement with considerable astonishment. How it ever came about that anyone advised the right hon. Gentleman to make a charge for dental treatment, in view of the vast amount of advice which already existed on this point, from some of which I quoted when I spoke on Second Reading, we really could not imagine.
One thing is certain amid the obscurity, and that is that the dental profession itself objected very strongly and strenuously indeed to the proposal. Particularly did they object to charges for dental treatment, as we on this side of the Committee object to them, being made by the method selected; namely, the charge for the first £1 worth of treatment which was necessary, or the amount, less than £1, which might be necessary, saying, in effect to the patient, "If your teeth have been neglected for sufficiently long, and you have acquired more than £1 worth of damage, you need not pay for the additional damage, but, if your teeth are in such a state that they need less than that amount of attention, we will charge you."
The dental profession made representations to the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, they made representations to every hon. Member of this House, so upset, surprised and consternated were they by this proposal. One must in fairness admit that the right hon. Gentleman has paid some attention to some of these representations. He himself agreed to exempt from the charge at first persons under 16, and later on, in response to further representations, under 21, so that they will not have to pay for the first £1 worth of dental treatment. That showed that the right hon. Gentleman was responsive more and more to suggestions. This afternoon he has been responsive to still further suggestions in this direction.
I should like to know whether the dental profession, having received from the right hon. Gentleman this concession for which they had asked, having secured from him the undertaking to raise the age of exemption to 21, are now satisfied. Have they made further representations to


the right hon. Gentleman? Have they indicated to him in any way whether they approve of this charge? I shall be very surprised indeed if they have.
Have they not asked him if he will go further—because the opinion which we on this side of the Committee have received from the professional associations and those who are expert in this field is that, if a charge is to be made at all, it should be made in such a way as to give an incentive for the care of the teeth and to encourage people to seek treatment. An examination which will not be charged for is, of course, some incentive, but the adoption of the proposal which I am putting forward would be a far greater incentive indeed.
6.0 p.m.
The dental health of this country is still very far from satisfactory. We have had before us many times the evidence collected by the Teviot Committee in 1944. That is only eight years ago. No doubt there has been some improvement since then—indeed I am sure there has been since a universal free service was provided from 1948 onwards. But we cannot be satisfied with the state of the dental health of our people. We know very well that there are not enough dentists to meet the needs of everybody requiring dental treatment.
I think that to adopt the proposal which I made this afternoon would be one way of ensuring that scarce dental skill is used at those times and places when it can give most benefit to the nation as a whole by improving the dental health of the people, which is so important to their general health. We must make improvements, even in bad things, if we can. We should devise a charge which would encourage people to undertake early treatment as quickly as possible.
If the dentist advises people that there is some small matter which needs immediate attention and from which they will benefit, let him not have to say that it will cost them 12s. 6d. or 15s. but rather that if they let him do it at once it will never cost them anything at all. The right hon. Gentleman has provided a concession this afternoon. Let him take full advantage of it and go a step forward and encourage people, especially young people, to come forward for treatment.
I know that he has raised the age of exemption to 21, but there are large

numbers of young people above that age who are still earning comparatively small incomes, who are still, shall we say, in a comparatively irresponsible stage of their development, and who do not attach the same importance as older people to the care of their teeth. Let the Minister, therefore, take full advantage of the concession he has made, improve upon it, and make his device as complete as he can in the circumstances in which he finds himself.

Mr. Baird: I rise to support this Amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friend and myself because I believe it gets right to the basis of the dental charges. The first argument put forward in favour of these charges was that they would help to stop some of the many abuses. With regard to the dental aspect of the Bill, there can be no basis for that argument because nobody goes to a dentist to have a tooth extracted or filled unless it is necessary.
I believe that one of the major reasons for imposing charges on dental treatment is because a large number of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have the idea that the dental service is simply one of the frills of the National Health Service, and is not as essential as some others. But I submit to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Parliamentary Secretary that the dental service is an integral and important part of the National Health Service and that, if it is undermined to any great extent, the effect will be to undermine the health of the people.
A septic tooth can cause many diseases. Daily, doctors are sending many cases of all kinds to practising dentists who quite often find on examination that the cause of the infection is in the mouth. Therefore, if the teeth of the people deteriorate as a result of these charges, there is a danger that their health will also deteriorate.
Those of us who come from industrial areas, as many on this side of the Committee do, know what happened in those areas in the bad old days. We in the dental profession have been fighting against it for generations. We had a two-tier system of treatment, one for middle-class patients, who could afford to pay for conservative treatment, and another for the great mass of people who, because they could not afford to pay for


such treatment, only came to us for extractions and artificial teeth. Dentists in those areas flourished by manufacturing dentures.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), when Minister of Health, deliberately tried to force down the price paid to dentists for dentures and to force up the price of conservative dentistry in order to save teeth rather than manufacture dentures. He was proved right, and the dental health of this country has been improving during the last three years at a tremendous rate. But the imposition of this charge is going to put the Service back to where it was before 1948. I will read the Committee a quotation from the "British Dental Journal" of 4th March, and nobody could say that that was a Labour publication. The following is what they say is going to happen as a result of these charges:
A reasonable expectation would he that the demand rate will settle down at a figure more nearly approximate to that which obtained under the old dispensation of dental benefit under the National Health Insurance Acts.
The dentists anticipate that, owing to these charges, based on last year, we shall get back to the dentistry we had before the National Health Service was introduced.
As a dental surgeon, I have been very unpopular with my professional brothers on many occasions because I have told them in this House when I thought they had been unethical. I see that the gallant and sanctimonious right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) is in the Chamber. I remember during a debate on the National Health Service, when I protested on behalf of some of my constituents who were being misused by certain members of the dental profession in my area at the time—they could not receive attention without paying for it—the right hon. and gallant Gentleman accused me of making a foul speech and of fouling my own nest because I attacked certain members of my profession. It is well known that hon. Members on both sides received numerous letters at the beginning of the Service complaining that dentists were refusing to give emergency treatment under the scheme, and I was proved right.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Not at all.

Mr. Baird: As a result of my protests in this House and the leaders of the dental profession being able to bring their influence to bear on the unethical members of the dental profession, that practice was stopped, and today we have a service which is running very well indeed. But if this charge, which is chiefly a charge for emergency treatment, is imposed, we shall go back to what happened in the early days of the service. Emergency treatment of all kinds will he carried out outside the scheme and the person requiring such treatment will have to pay for it, perhaps at a time when he can least afford to do so. I know that in such circumstances many of my professional brothers would give the treatment without charge, but that is not the way to approach the problem. This service is not a charity; it is a right.
There is one other small technical point to which I hope the Minister will try to reply. He has not attempted to reply to any of my technical points up to now. Since the scheme came into being, we dentists have tried to save teeth rather than take them out. Every day patients come to us wanting extractions. I find that if one puts in a dressing one may be able to bring that patient back in a week or so for a filling. When we carry out this treatment that is a temporary dressing, we get a fee of 7s. 6d.
But if this scheme is carried through, the patient will have to pay the 7s. 6d., or whatever the dentist charges. The patient will pay 7s. 6d. for the dressing and then the dentist's fee for filling when he comes back for treatment in a week's time. Therefore, there will be two fees for the same treatment. The patient who has not been educated to the conservation of teeth will tend to say, "No, let me have the tooth out and be done with it."
I am grateful to the Minister for the compliment when, referring to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Jain MacLeod), he asked, "Who am I to disagree with hon. Members who are experienced in the profession?" I really hope the right hon. Gentleman will listen to me again, as I am speaking professionally here. Who advised the right hon. Gentleman on this method of paying these charges?


Quite frankly, I am against all charges in the dental service; but if charges are to be imposed, surely the profession should have been consulted before they were fixed. I know there were consultations afterwards. But were the British Dental Association consulted before the method of imposing the charges was introduced? Does the hon. Member for Enfield, West agree that that is the best method of raising the money? I will sit down if he will tell us.

Mr. Iain MacLeod: The hon. Member's method of conducting debates is tediously familiar. I have not the slightest intention of intervening to suit his convenience.

Mr. Baird: There is a split in the Tory Party on this issue.

Dr. Morgan: Running away as usual.

Mr. Baird: This is the silliest method of imposing a charge because it will be a charge on the sensible patient who comes regularly to his dentist. The "British Dental Journal" for 15th April states:
The method of requiring patients to pay up to the first £1 on each estimate for treatment is still, however, open to the objection that it will operate unfairly to the disadvantage of those who attend regularly for treatment. They will, inevitably, be called upon to pay for the greater part of their treatment, whereas those who only make occasional visits to the dentist will he called upon to meet only a small proportion of the cost. This is bound, in the long run, to act as a deterrent to regular treatment—the one thing which should be the aim of a well-conceived health service to encourage.
Again—and on this I have put down an Amendment which I am afraid will not be called—the "British Dental Journal" makes a suggestion to the Minister. It goes on to state:
A percentage charge on all estimates would not be open to this objection. Under such a system, a patient who had one small filling done on each of four half-yearly visits would be called upon to pay the same charge as a patient who had four larger fillings done during one course of treatment at the end of two years, whereas under the proposals in the Bill, the first patient would pay the whole cost of his treatment and the second would only have to pay £1.
Why is it that the Minister has paid no attention to his professional advisers? It is only because this Bill was ill-conceived and hurriedly introduced for petty political motives and not to bring any

advantage to the National Health Service. The hon. Member for Enfield, West, who made a very feeble return in his speech yesterday, took the line that these charges are ethically and socially justified because they will bring a better balance to the Health Service and will have a restraining influence on the scheme.
They are having a restraining influence all right. The Act introduced last year is already having a tremendous effect. The demand for dentures has dried up and there are hundreds of dental mechanics unemployed and a large number of dentists not fully employed. Does the hon. Member want that? If these new charges are imposed, it will mean there will be less and less demand for fillings and conservative treatment. If these things were being abused then let us by all means impose these charges. But are they? The demand for dentures has dried up, and the British Dental Association is worried because now there will be less demand for conservation treatment. As I said before, we are imposing a two-tier system—one type of dentistry for the wealthier classes and another for the poorer. We are putting the clock back to earlier days.
6.15 p.m.
I believe there is a Dentists Bill ready for discussion, which has passed through all stages in another place, if the Leader of the House can find time for it. Its aim is to deal with the alleged shortage of dentists. I entirely disagree with the view that there is a shortage of dentists today. Let us not think that these proposed charges are a minor matter. I knew from my own practical experience that patients coming in week after week, and month after month, have really appreciated this free dental service. I speak with all sincerity as one who spends more time on his practice than in this House—though perhaps I ought not to do that.
I have heard the hon. Member for Enfield, West, and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), suggest that these charges are socially justified. If they said those things in their own constituencies, they would be hounded out of the town. If these charges are imposed, we shall go back to a type of dental treatment and service that we had before the great National Health Service was introduced.

Mr. Iain MacLeod: The reason I would recommend my right hon. Friend the Minister on this occasion not to take the advice of the practising dentist to whom we have just listened is that I believe that, from beginning to end of what he said, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird), was entirely wrong.
On the Second Reading of this Bill, I put two propositions to the House, both of which have been referred to at inordinate length not only by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, but by other hon. Members opposite. I said that, as far as the gleaning together of a small amount of information went—and there was no official information at the time—the charges had a serious deterrent effect. I said, secondly, "I believe you can justify this sort of charges if the result of a drop in the demand for dentures is an increase in the dental school service, and only if that happens."
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, as he always does, went off like a soda fountain about that and he has been bubbling about it ever since. He appears to be unaware that a large number of people in his profession do not agree with him, and I am alarmed at what will happen on the day when he realises that it is not the rest of the battalion but little Willie who is not in step.

Mr. Baird: Is the hon. Member talking about my views or the facts of the situation? There is not a considerable number of dentists drifting back.

Mr. MacLeod: If I were talking about the facts of the case, I could not conceivably be talking about the hon. Member's views. I give him that straight away. At the time when I put these views to the House, there were shouts of "Nonsense" from the hon. Member. He repeated that there is no considerable drift back. Three days after I made that speech the Department of Health for Scotland issued a report for 1951, which I have here. I will not go into all the details, but it confirms that the figures that I gave from estimates only, and from such information as a private Member can gather, were completely accurate and that there had been such a drop in the provision of dentures that there had been a considerable deterrent effect. Two figures are

most impressive. In January, 1951, 61.1 per cent. of the total payments to dentists represented fees for dentures. The corresponding amount in December, 1951, represented only 32.2 per cent. On that issue we are agreed. There has been a deterrent effect.
Now let us come to the second point. What improvement has there been in the school dental service? Perhaps I may read this paragraph to the hon. Member.

Mr. Baird: Does this relate to Scotland?

Mr. MacLeod: Yes, and these figures will also be confirmed in the English Report when it comes out. I spoke to the Secretary of the British Dental Association on this matter only the day before yesterday. The paragraph states:
One important consequence of the drop in applications for dentures along with the negotiations for improved salary scales in local authority employment was an increase in the number of dentists in the school dental service. By the end of the year, taking account of dentists with engagements to start work early in 1952, half the ground lost by the school service after the introduction of the National Health Service in 1948 had been recovered. There was every reason to expect that this trend would continue.
How dare the hon. Member come to the House and make that sort of suggestion? He must have seen that statement that half the ground lost by the miserable tactics of his Government had been recovered—tactics which, far from helping the dental health of the people, helped the non-priority classes and rotted the children's teeth. If we on this side of the House are to be accused in that phrase by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), I throw it straight back at him. I do not see how the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, dares, as a professional man, to come to the House and say that there is no considerable evidence, because the evidence which I hold in my hand is the official evidence of the Ministry. It consists no longer of the estimates of a back bench Member, as it did on Second Reading.

Mr. Baird: There are two points that I should like to raise. First of all, to say that the dental health of school children is now lower than it was is completely unfounded, and no responsible dental body would suggest it. Had I known that the hon. Gentleman was going to


deal with the school dental service on this Amendment, I would have referred to it myself earlier. We have never had an efficient school dental service, and I say that there is no possibility that by these charges we shall get a flow into the school dental service so as to provide an efficient service.

Mr. MacLeod: It is happening now, and the Secretary of the British Dental Association told me so less than 48 hours ago.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: rose—

Mr. MacLeod: I cannot give way to the hon. Member. I am dealing entirely with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East; it is more courteous to concentrate on him. In my view, the evidence is abundant, and I say that if the only result of a deterrent charge was that dentists and dental mechanics were unemployed, I would loathe that charge. I do not like charges for the fun of it. I like charges either because they are economically essential or because I believe—I freely grant that one can be wrong on this—it is possible to get a list of priorities. If that be so, then these charges are going to be justified if the health of the children is better looked after.
As any parents can tell the hon. Member—and I myself have young children—it is quite true that it is becoming increasingly possible to get appointments for the dental treatment of one's children either in emergency or for conservative treatment, which is more closely concerned with this Amendment. The reason for that is that less dentures are being made and dentists have more time. These things stem from the charges introduced a year ago. I do not say that this is the best method of introducing them—I do not know what negotiations there have been—but on those grounds, and on the principle that a dental charge in itself is not abhorent, I stand absolutely firm.
I do not want a deterrent charge so that dentists become unemployed; heaven forbid. I am deeply concerned with the dental profession, as I think the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, will agree, although we differ widely on so many other matters. Only in education is it more silly to be dogmatic than

in matters of health. It is wrong to say flatly that such and such a thing must happen. All I say is that the evidence so far shows the truth of the views which I have consistently put to the House, for if I have ever been single-minded about anything I have been single-minded about these charges, and I have stated my views all over the country. I retreat from nothing.
I genuinely believe that, quite apart from the economic outlook, there is nothing whatever between the point of view of the Minister of Health and myself or between the front and back benchers on this side of the Committee on this issue at all. Because one speaker emphasises the economic aspect of the problem and another the social aspect, it does not mean that they fail to recognise the strength of the other's point of view. I believe that these charges will find their justification in time. If they do not, I shall be the first to say that as soon as possible they should be reduced or withdrawn. I say that seriously.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health not to take too much account of the views of our only dentist in this matter, because, as the Department of Health for Scotland have proved, and as the Ministry of Health for England and Wales will prove in due course, he just simply does not know the real implications of what he is saying.

Mr. Baird: May I put this point for the sake of getting it on the record? Will the hon. Member tell me what he thinks the establishment of the school dental service should be in order to give an efficient service?

Mr. MacLeod: It depends entirely—

Mr. Baird: I just want it on the record.

Mr. MacLeod: I am prepared to answer the question, though goodness knows why the hon. Member should ask me this sort of question. Probably the figure which has been given in the House on many occasions, of between 2,000 and 3,000, is correct.

Mr. Baird: For England and Wales?

Mr. MacLeod: For England, Wales and Scotland—provided that dentists themselves in the public service also have


time to give of their skill. One does not know the precise figure because we simply do not know to what extent the lag in conservative treatment has left a backlog of ill-health. I suspect that it is very considerable indeed. I do not believe that a flat answer can be given.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: May I ask one or two questions? I was not very impressed by the last two or three sentences that the hon. Gentleman uttered. He said that if it is proved that he is wrong—by that I suppose he means if it is proved in the next year or two—that people's teeth are deteriorating and that, therefore, the Government have made a great mistake, he will be prepared to withdraw all that he has said today.
6.30 p.m.
The hon. Member has set himself up in this Chamber—and perhaps there is some justification for it—as an authority on social reform. Is it not a curious attitude to take in respect of dental caries, to say that, if the teeth of the people deteriorate, he is prepared to admit to us that he was wrong? Surely he is not going to pursue that argument and wait for the teeth of the people to deteriorate? It might be a valid argument if he were discussing something not quite so serious, but I hope that he will explain to the Committee that he did not mean exactly what his words conveyed, certainly to those Members on this side of the Committee.

Mr. MacLeod: With great respect to the right hon. Lady, she is on a false point. She would be on an accurate point if everything in the garden were lovely at the moment, but she knows very well that the numbers in the school dental service deteriorated enormously under her administration.

Dr. Summerskill: I am not asking the hon. Gentleman only about the school dental service. I am also thinking of the teeth of the young men and women who are over 21—between 21 and 25—whose teeth are very vulnerable. I am thinking of men and women in the lowest income groups. The hon. Gentleman is prepared to tell the Committee that he is ready to wait to see if their teeth deteriorate under this scheme and, if they do, he will then be prepared to withdraw his argument.

Miss Margaret Herbison: I wish to support this Amendment, but before dealing with it precisely there is one question which I should like to have answered. It is a question that has been exercising the minds of all Scottish Members on this side of the Committee, particularly since Question time on Tuesday. Then, in answer to a supplementary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton), the Secretary of State for Scotland said:
That is rather a different point and perhaps is for those in charge of the National Health Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd April, 1952; Vol. 499, c. 204.]
That answer surprised us very much indeed, since the same right hon. Gentleman's name is attached to this Bill.
But since he has made that statement and since the Second Reading, during the whole of the long Committee stage of this Bill, not one of the five Scottish Ministers who have a right to sit in this Chamber has said anything at all about these Amendments. Our Scottish Members are wondering whether the Government have decided to accept at least one major Amendment, that standing in the names of six of my hon. Friends—in Clause 4, page 3, line 29, to leave out subsection (3). I hope that whoever replies will give me a specific answer to that question, because we did feel that when two extra Ministers were added to the Scottish Office they would at least let Scotland's voice be heard more often from the Government Front Bench. What we are discovering is that on United Kingdom matters, in spite of the extra Ministers at the Scottish Office, Scotland's voice is being heard less and less.
I want to come to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod). It did not seem to me that he was speaking to this Amendment at all. The whole of his speech seemed to be bent towards proving that what he had said in the past was absolutely correct, because his main argument was that, by opposing this Amendment, we were providing a deterrent to the misuse of dentists. What does he mean by a deterrent? The Amendment which we have moved is asking that any conservative work that costs £1 or less ought to be free. Does he want to deter conservative work? If he does not want to do that, the whole of his speech goes for nothing.
When we had our National Health Service Act on the Statute Book, I felt that one of the finest provisions of that Act was free dental treatment, particularly in relation to conservative treatment. In this matter of the conservation of teeth, there was a really class division inside this country, because it was just impossible for the parents of many people from working-class homes to find the wherewithal to pay for conservative treatment for them and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird), was perfectly correct when he said that in our big industrial areas, at a very young age, our men and women had dentures and not one single tooth of their own in their heads.
It is for those reasons that I, who come from an industrial area, feel that this Bill is going to have very serious repercussions not only on the care of teeth but because, although children or young people under 21 are still going to have it free, at the present time we have a National Service Act under which the young people, either at 18 or at 20 years of age, must go into the Services for two years. These may be young people who are apprentices or who are at universities. It means that all these young men are going to be much older than 21 before they have any chance whatever of earning what will keep them in a reasonable way of life.
These are the young people who, until the age of 21, because of our National Health Service Act, will have learned to go to the dentist regularly and will have taken a pride in the care of their teeth. When they become 21 years of age, still students or apprentices and still earning very little or nothing at all, this vicious Act—because I can describe it in no other terms—is going to make it impossible for them to get the conservative treatment that all reasonably-minded people would wish them to have.
If it were for that reason alone—to take care of these young National Service men—then I would plead with the Minister that this might be one Amendment that he could very easily accept. It is not only that we are afraid of what will happen to the teeth of these young persons; it is not only dental disease of which we are afraid; but many diseases diagnosed by doctors can be traced to the lack of care of teeth in earlier years, so

that by this miserable saving in this part of the Bill we are piling up great expenditure to be borne not only by the men or women but by the national Exchequer.
This is a vicious Clause and I would say, for the reasons I have adduced, that it is also a very stupid Clause. I should like to suggest to whoever is to reply that he should give serious consideration to the points made by hon. Members on this side of the Committee. We are making no cheap party points on this Amendment. We are doing our level best to ensure, first of all, that conservative treatment will be continued for young people when they are over 21 years of age, and that the general health of our people will be preserved.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: With the concluding sentences of the remarks of the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) I am sure we should all agree: that we are not trying to arrive at a party decision over this matter. We are trying to hammer out the solution of what is, admittedly, a very difficult problem. It is the problem of how to make an insufficient supply of dentists—of skilled men—go round where it will be most effective.
The White Paper of the Coalition Government said that there were not enough skilled people to introduce a comprehensive Health Service. It was decided, rightly or wrongly, to introduce a comprehensive Health Service, and great difficulties flowed from that and great tensions, one of the tensions being the falling off of the conservative treatment, especially of the young people, to which the hon. Lady has just referred. We are trying to deal with that in the Clause.
I fully sympathise with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod), that if these charges did not have the redistributive effect to which we all look, they would have failed greatly in their object; and I myself would be opposed to them. I can say that with a certain amount of past record, for, after all, the foundation of the whole of this conservative treatment is the health of the schoolchildren's teeth. On that I think every practising nutritionist would say that the ration of milk to the schoolchildren is the foundation stone upon which the whole thing is built. I do not need merely to appeal to opinions here. We have the two


Mellanby Reports, which showed that, as we said, the introduction of a ration of milk into the schoolchild's diet was followed by an improvement both in the structure and in the resistance of the teeth.
The danger that we have all seen is the danger of the falling off of the school dental service. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) takes a contrary view. He says that the schoolchildren were being looked after by—were being merged into—the general dental service. [Interruption.] I am doing my best not to make any party point. That is a line which could reasonably be taken. The right hon. Gentleman said that the school dental service—this specialist service—was a poor thing and that it would have been better looked after by the general dental facilities which were open to the whole population.
The sinister thing is that that is not happening. Quite apart from the falling off in the numbers of dentists, to which my hon. Friend referred, we have the most interesting statistics in the Scottish Report and the recovery in the number of dentists. But these, it may be said, are theoretical points; how do we know that a smaller number of dentists meant a diminution in the health of teeth, and how do we know that a larger number of dentists will make an improvement in the teeth? We have not any direct evidence for the second, but we have for the first.
Recent reports—and this is the thing to which the Committee should give attention—have pointed out that in the last two years there is evidence that the previously satisfactory state of the schoolchildren's teeth was going back; that the teeth of the schoolchildren were not as good as they had been. That may be due to, I do not know what—a dozen things. At any rate, there is no doubt that there is an association; that what we thought was likely to happen is happening. Whether it is due to the shortage of dentists and dental treatment, I do not know, but the two things are going in parallel. There has been a falling off in the school dental treatment and, still more, in the school inspections, and there has been a falling off in the health of the teeth.
6.45 p.m.
Those two things make it very necessary to work together to try to change that balance. I fully sympathise with what the hon. Lady said: that one may be penny wise and pound foolish in this: that a penny spent on conservative treatment may save a pound later. But surely, of all places to begin conservative treatment, the teeth of the growing child is the first place.
If we are to believe the official reports which we have seen, that there is a falling off in the dental health of the schoolchildren, we must treat that as a failure at the beginning of our conservative treatment, at the beginning of the very foundation of the whole process, and then make every effort to see what can be done to remedy that before we give attention to the later stages.
It was that which weighed with me very much when I introduced the school milk. I could not see that within any reasonable time we were going to be able to get sufficient dental treatment to deal with the very bad state of the dental health in our industrial centres, of which the worst, I suppose, is Glasgow—the city which the hon. Lady and I know so well and which produced that vigorous figure the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird). It is a city where the dental health is, perhaps, worse than in any other.
I certainly thought we had got to begin on the schoolchildren, and we did so. We got the improvement in the Mellanby Report, and the improvement in the second Mellanby Report. That improvement is beginning to be lost now.

Mr. Barnett Janner: I appreciate the point which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is making, but has he any idea of the number of dental officers who were available at the beginning of 1950, 1951 and 1952, and the whole-time equivalent that they were spending upon school services? If he had those figures, I do not think he would be able to make the argument that he is now presenting. What about England and Wales?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I quote the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, who has made repeated speeches in the House saying that he had established, as he thought, a priority for the school dental


service, but that the thing had gone the other way and the priority in the school dental service was falling off. It is common knowledge amongst us all that it has been more difficult to get school dentists than it was before. Indeed, during the debates on the education Estimates, most vigorous attacks were made by certain hon. Members from the other side of the House on the ground that certain local authorities were not making provision for school dentistry; and it was found later, on going into the matter—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

Committee counted, and 40 Members being present—

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: There is something rather disgraceful and very disgusting in trying to count the House out on the Health Service, and it shows how much authority we should give to the claims of sympathy which come in such nauseating profusion from certain hon. Members on the other side. It is particularly noticeable that the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, has not troubled to come to keep the Committee in progress while his own subject, on which he himself had spoken and on which he professes such terrific enthusiasm, was being debated.

Mr. Manuel: But this Bill damages the Health Service. Slimy hypocrisy.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I say that hypocrisy has scarcely been more shockingly exhibited than in the action of an hon. Member on the other side of the Committee in calling the count.

Mr. Manuel: On a point of order.

The Chairman: I am already on my feet. The hon. Member must give way. I must ask the hon. Member to withdraw that remark about "slimy hypocrisy." I cannot allow it.

Mr. Manuel: Sir Charles, do I take it you are calling on me to withdraw a remark made to you or to somebody else?

The Chairman: That is not the point. I am not going to allow that remark to be made in the Committee, and the hon. Member must withdraw it.

Mr. Manuel: If it is out of order, I will certainly withdraw it; but it was meant to apply to the tactics being employed.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We can leave it, then. It was a comment upon the tactics that are being employed, and we can leave it to HANSARD to show who first employed those tactics. I do not wish to enter upon any acrid discussion with the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire. It may be that, both belonging to a somewhat turbulent race, we became slightly heated in the exchanges.
I would only say that the subject which we are discussing—and I do not wish to go into it at any length—is whether the place at which to begin conservation is not at the growing point of the teeth, and that brings us to the question of the redistribution of the dentists that has taken place. As to that, one need not go further than the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) when he was responsible. He said last year:
Before the Health Service Act came into operation there were in Great Britain about 50 per cent. more dentists in the dental educational system than there are at present.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) interrupted me a moment or two ago. May I have his attention? It is a little difficult to carry on debate when none of the hon. Members opposite is listening. I was referring to the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West, who challenged me.

Mr. Janner: I am so sorry.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Yes, well, it slows the Debate a little if one has to interrupt private conversations before we can get the public debate carried on. I was speaking of the question of the school dental officers, and drawing attention to what the right hon. Gentleman for Greenock said when he was responsible for this service only a year ago. He said:
Before the Health Service Act came into operation there were in Great Britain about 50 per cent. more dentists in the dental educational system than there are at present. There have not been fewer dentists trained in the interval. The drain off has taken place almost exclusively to the National Health Service. We have made cuts—cuts which I think were completely justified and which, of course, arose from impartial examinations;


still, we did not fill the gap in that service. Today, we have some 800 in the service. We could quite easily employ twice that number. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th April, 1951; Vol. 487, c. 335.]
It seems to me that that is evidence of a very considerable gap, and gives full force to the point I was making—not at all an unreasonable point, and well within the knowledge of the Committee as a whole—that there has been a falling off of the dentists in the school dental service, and that more could be employed there with advantage. We need a reflux towards that service. I do not think that that is an exaggeration or an over-statement of the case. Our official reports show that at the growing point of the teeth, at the point of the health of the teeth of school children, special care must be taken. Unless we can do something about that, we shall not carry out the conservative treatment which we regard as the fundamental objective we are trying to secure.
A debate like this could go on for a considerable time. Nutrition was my original love, and mineral metabolism, and particularly calcium metabolism, was one of the subjects in which I wrote my thesis for my D.Sc., but there is nothing worse than a technician beginning to prate about the details of the technicalities of his subject to a lay audience, and, therefore, I only say that I am not bringing any of these things into the argument, but that I am only bringing forward a general argument, and I say that to proceed on these lines is a good and sound thing, and they are precisely what the right hon. Gentleman has put before us today.

Mr. Hastings: Although I have never been a practising dentist I have spent my professional life dealing with troubles in adjacent regions, and, therefore, I have had occasion to take a considerable interest in the teeth and diseases of the teeth and the adjacent regions. If I understand the arguments from the other side aright, they are something like this, that charges for dental treatment in adults may be an advantage if they succeed in increasing the treatment being given to school children and younger children. I hope that that is not to misinterpret them.
I agree entirely—I think that we shall all agree—that the most important thing

is conservative treatment, and that it is most important in the case of children. So far, I think, we are on common ground. But I would not assume—I do not think we ought to assume—that conservative treatment for those over 21 is of no value. I am considerably over 21, and I have a good many of my own teeth left, but that has been achieved only by continuous conservative treatment. Nor must we assume that the use of dentures in place of carious teeth, poisoning the system, is not a great advantage. Medical treatment, and time spent on the care of the teeth of adults, though I agree that it is of less importance than that spent on the care of children, is in no sense wasted.
What I was going to say was, that we are not going to drive many dentists from the treatment of adults to the treatment of children, and for this good reason, that the treatment of children, in medicine or dentistry, needs a special type of mind—a special experience, a special adaptability—which all people have not got. I know dentists who tried to enter the school dental service and who made a complete failure of it because they had not the type of mind required. Therefore, I suggest that we are not going, desirable as it may be, to drive as many dentists as we should like from the general dental service to the school dental service—and if we do, there will, at any rate, be some very evil results to follow.
Just one word about these charges. These charges which will tend, in whatever form they are, to prevent people seeking dental treatment as soon as it would be good for them to do. I do not think, as has been suggested, that many people go to the dentist without need for it. No one ever goes to a dentist without advantage. When teeth are examined it is astonishing how many unsuspected small spots of trouble are found by the dentist. We do not want to keep people from going to dentists if we can avoid it. Especially we ought not to prevent people going to dentists if they have toothache and bad pain, because pain is an indication of dental disease which means that treatment is necessary. What will be the effect of the imposition of charges on those people who have dental pain?
7.0 p.m.
It is suggested in the Bill that they will have to pay £1, but they will think twice about going to the dentist when


they can go to their doctor and get treatment for nothing. People with dental pain will be driven by this charge to going to their doctors, who, being kindly people who want to do the best for their patients, will probably try to remove teeth which need not be removed, or could be saved. My experience is that it is disastrous when a doctor tries to remove teeth; a good many break off the teeth, and the condition of the patient is worse than it would otherwise have been. I maintain that any dental charge, at any age, which prevents people going for treatment as soon as they feel they need it is most undesirable.

Mr. Hugh Linstead: Almost all that can be said on this subject has, I think, already been said.

Mr. M. Follick: Oh, no. I have got something to say.

Mr. Linstead: I was speaking hopefully.
I wish to draw attention to an aspect of this Clause which we have tended to overlook in the criticisms that have been made, and which it is as well we should not overlook when people for whose opinions we have considerable respect, such as those of the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), refer to the whole Bill as a vicious one. It is true that in this Clause we are doing something which is clumsy and crude, but we are doing it in an attempt to remedy a defect in the original National Health Service Act.
It is too easy for hon. Members opposite to forget that the dental service part of the National Health Service scheme was launched on the basis that there were two priority classes, the children and the expectant mothers, who would be specially catered for in respect of their dental needs. As the National Health Service has worked out, it is those priority classes who have been left without adequate dental treatment, and in this amending Bill we are endeavouring, in however clumsy a way, to remedy a defect in the parent Act—the defect that the priority classes have not been getting the priority they were promised.
Having said that, I now wish to draw attention to the Amendment, and to ask hon. Members opposite whether they have appreciated the precise terms they

are asking the Committee to endorse. At the moment the provision is for a series of charges with a "ceiling" at £1. If this Amendment is accepted we take out the series entirely, with the result that either £1 is paid or nothing is paid. I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to see that incorporated in the Bill, so that either £1 is paid or nothing.

Mr. David Logan: Pay nothing.

Mr. Linstead: But that is not what this Amendment would achieve. The effect of accepting the Amendment would be that the charge will be either £1 or nothing; there is no gradation at all; and I am asking hon. Gentlemen opposite whether that is what they want to achieve.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: The hon. Gentleman will find on the Order Paper varying proposals—though whether or not they would have been called is another matter—by which various alternative proportions of the total sum above £1 might have been charged.

Mr. Linstead: At the moment we are discussing only this Amendment, by which we are invited to put into the Bill this very curious provision which says, in effect, that if the cost of the treatment is 20s. nothing is paid, but that if the cost is 20s. 6d. £1 is paid. I merely wish to draw the attention of the Committee to that, and again to ask those responsible for the Amendment whether that is the result they want to achieve?

Mr. Manuel: I should like to try to get into focus the position of the school dental service as I know it in Scotland. While the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) made an assertion about teeth going bad, he did not indicate whether he was referring to Scotland or to England and Wales. I can only deal adequately with the school dental service and the condition of children's teeth in Scotland.
As one who was a member of a local authority, who was for many years the public health convenor of a large county council, and on the education committee of that county council, I found that, in trying to build up a good school dental service in Scotland in the years prior to


the National Health Service Act, we were constantly under the handicap of not being able to recruit the necessary dentists to provide the sort of service we wanted.
The reason for that, in the main, was that, in the outside service—and this was more accentuated once the National Health Service started—there were better conditions, with a far higher salary range. Consequently, long before the Act came into operation, there was a denuding of the school dental service, and the dentists whom we were getting in the school dental service were the tail end of the dental profession, whether we liked it or not. Our school children in Scotland, therefore, were not getting a dental service which provided all the attention it ought to the conserving of their teeth, mainly through the combination of the two circumstances to which I have referred.
The cream of the dental profession was not within the school dental service and it had not the numbers because they were drawn into the general service. I thought, as a father myself, that, after the Health Act came into being, gradually the school dental service would go completely out. I thought that it was a double-tier placed on the general Health Service on the dental side that would become completely obsolete, because the provisions of the Act itself gave every man, women and child in the country the right to all the dental attention that was necessary. While we wanted the transitional period to be easy because people had accustomed themselves to having their children treated within the school dental service, I thought that it would gradually have passed out.
Now we have a statement by the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove that because there was a denuding of the school dental service, children's teeth have been getting worse. I am not accepting that for Scotland because I am not accepting that slight against our Scottish mothers, that they are not keen enough about their children's teeth to send them to the family dentist. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod), said that he had a family. Do I take it that he was not utilising the service for the conservation of teeth within the Health Service which his children could have had, and that he was

solely dependent on the school dental service which had become practically nonexistent?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am interested in this point. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod), who is out of the Chamber for a short time, as is inevitable in a long sitting, said that he found as a father that it was easier to get appointments for his children with a practising dentist now, because the practising dentists were not run off their feet making dentures.

Mr. Manuel: My knowledge of my district in Ayrshire is that this has not been so. We have found the family dentists extremely considerate, and they give all the attention necessary to the children. I am thinking of children in my own particular street, and I know that numbers of parents are going to their family dentists and making appointments four times a year for their children to have their teeth examined, and that is going on constantly. If this new service is part of the Health Service, surely all that we need in the schools is to see that proper examinations take place and that the children are then directed to the family dentists.
I am not accepting that in Scotland people in the majority are neglectful of their children's teeth. I say that all that is necessary is that there should be some sort of dental examination in the schools, and that if conservation is necessary, the children should get it from their family dentists.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Will the hon. Gentleman carry on the argument with the right hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil), who said that a year ago we had 800 dentists and he would like to have double that number?

Mr. William Ross: In the school dental service? There are only 90 in the whole of Scotland.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am quoting the right hon. Member for Greenock. I have chapter and verse for it. Everyone knows these figures. They were quoted at length by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West.

Mr. Baird: There are 899 school dental officers in the country today. The figures have risen by 40 since the charges


were imposed. The hon. Member for Enfield, West, said that we want between 2,000 and 3,000 dentists for an efficient school dental service.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: rose—

Mr. Manuel: The right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove has put in a lot of little speeches today, and I hope that he will allow me to continue.

Mr. Raymond Gower: Does not the hon. Gentleman really imagine that if we had only inspections in schools, we would have a very inferior type of dentist who would do nothing else but inspect teeth in schools?

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Manuel: My case is that the Act is giving full cover to everybody, if they go for it. I am not prepared to accept that parents in Scotland, and, I believe, throughout Britain, can be placed in the category of not wanting to do the best for their children so far as dental treatment is concerned. If there were any parents of the type suggested by hon. Gentlemen opposite, we should have the protective service of examinations in the schools to find this out. I feel that it is an extravagance that we should have this whole dental service built up. Most parents are delighted with the attention which is given to their children's teeth, since the Act came in, by their own family dentists. I do not think that we should try to denigrate the value of the Health Act in relation to dental health.
The hon. Member for Enfield, West, is willing to hang arguments on to anything he can in order to try and scrimp money at the expense of conservation of teeth or anything else. He is against this Amendment which would allow of the conservation of our young people's teeth over school age up to £1. If he has his way, we shall not have this conservation unless there is payment, so it is not our young folk's teeth that he is concerned about; it is what he can get by this deterrent in a monetary way.
I very nearly not into trouble through talking about hypocrisy, but I am prepared to say that there is a great deal of hypocrisy in the arguments coming from the other side. I am not prepared to say that this is a slimy hypocrisy because that is the easier type—this is rough-hewn hypocrisy. I hope that we shall have less of this type of thing from hon. Gentle-

men opposite and a realisation that we ought to conserve people's teeth in the best way we can. I think that we can do that by strengthening the Health Act and by not mutilating and destroying it, as the present Bill is doing.

Mr. Powell: During most of his speech the hon. Member for Ayrshire, Central (Mr. Manuel) has developed a very interesting case for the euthanasia of the school dental service—for its reduction merely to an examination system. I do not propose to go into that interesting speculation, because it is not a point of view which is shared by the great majority of his hon. and right hon. Friends or by my hon. Friends. I see that he agrees with that.
I will begin by considering rather narrowly what I apprehend to be the effect of the Amendment if it were inserted in the Bill together with the consequential Amendments which appear later on the Order Paper. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead) perhaps exaggerated the evil effects by taking the Amendment in isolation, nevertheless I believe his argument was substantially sound.
The result would be to substitute for charges which rise to a maximum of £1 and then cease to rise altogether, a charge which starts to be imposed when the work costs £1 and thereafter mounts pro rata. The effect of that would coincide with some of the effects about which the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) was fearful—poor patients and their dentists deliberately undertaking the less effective and often less conservative type of work in order to avoid a charge. I hope hon. Members will consider that aspect before they press the Amendment.
Throughout the arguments for the Amendment emphasis has been upon conservative work, as though all dental work which costs only £1 was automatically conservative work. But dental work which costs up to £1 might just as well be devoted to extraction as to conservation. The effect of the Amendment is not to put a premium upon conservative work; it is to destroy the financial basis of the Clause. The financial effect alone would necessitate its rejection by my right hon. Friend.
The Opposition will then no doubt say, "We are back again in the old dilemma. On which leg are you standing? Are


you saying that the Clause ought to be in the Bill because it represents a saving of so many million pounds, or are you saying that it ought to be in the Bill because it produces this or that valuable effect within the Health Service?" I repeat that this is an entirely false dilemma. There is no contradiction at all between a Measure which results in a financial saving and a Measure which also produces an effect which is desirable in itself.
I shall pray in aid of that contention evidence of hon. Members opposite which bears very closely upon the Amendment. The late Minister of Health during the Committee stage of last year's Measure said, when dealing with the insertion of a time limit:
The purpose is to make savings in these parts of the National Health Service—the provision of dentures and spectacles—to meet the rising expenditure on more important parts of the Service, such as hospitals.
That is a very rational and sound financial argument. One must save money in one place in order to use it in another. But the right hon. Gentleman did not thereby debar himself from justifying his Measure by the positive effect which it would produce within the dental service. He elaborated some of the questions which he would be asking himself after a year or two's operation of last year's Act. He said:
… how far have the charges—after this period has elapsed—been beneficial in improving the service for children?
That shows that when the right hon. Gentleman last year imposed charges on dentures he had as his acknowledged object the improvement of the school dental service. I recommend that observation to the hon. Member for Barking who, as many others have done, argued that there was no natural connection between the manning up of the general dental service and the manning up of the school dental service. One of the questions which the right hon. Gentleman was going to ask himself when he came to review his Act was whether there had
… been any improvement in the numbers of school dentists."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1951; Vol. 487, c. 1311–2.]
He must have been gratified by the evidence produced this afternoon of the success which he has already achieved through last year's Act.

Mr. Blenkinsop: What the hon. Gentleman always forgets is that, at the same time as his right hon. Friend says that he wants in this way to increase the number of school dentists, he and the Government make sure by financial measures that not enough funds are available at the Ministry of Education to provide the jobs.

Mr. Powell: I am sure the hon. Member knows that there has been a substantial increase in the Education Vote under the head of the school dental service. Figures have been given to show—

Mr. Baird: rose—

Hon. Members: Order.

The Chairman: Only one hon. Member may stand at a time.

Mr. Powell: I am going to finish this part of my argument. It is generally acknowledged that during the last two years the numbers of school dentists have again begun to show a rise. They have risen over the country as a whole from a figure in the 700's to a figure in the 800's. We have additional financial provision in the Education Estimates for this year for the school dental service. We are thus applying the finance which we are in part obtaining from this source to the improvement of the school dental service.

Mr. Baird: Will the hon. Gentleman give way for a moment?

Mr. Powell: It was to provide—

Mr. Baird: This is a most important point.

Hon. Members: Order.

The Chairman: If the hon. Member who is speaking will not give way other hon. Members must resume their seats.

Mr. Powell: This point, which I believe to be of crucial importance, namely, that the financial effects of a Measure and its practical ameliorative effects hang together and are not contradictory, really goes back to the father of all these changes in the Health Service, the Leader of the Opposition himself. When he announced the first of these charges on 24th October, 1949, he said:
We propose to make a charge … The purpose is to reduce excessive and, in some cases, unnecessary resort to doctors and chemists. …


That was the ameliorative effect. He went on to say:
The resultant saving will contribute about £10 million, although this is not the primary purpose of the charge."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th October, 1949; Vol. 468, c. 1019.]
So the Leader of the Opposition recognises that we can have a Measure that is devoted at one and the same time to a financial purpose and to a practical purpose.
I pass finally to the immediate question of the school dental service within the National Health Service as a whole. I want to focus the attention of the Committee upon a very remarkable statement—it has already been quoted, but I do not think it has yet been fully explained—by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) on the Second Reading of the National Health Service Act in 1946. On the 1946 Act, which in this respect was unamended, he used the following words:
We have not enough dentists and it will therefore be neccessary for us, in the meantime, to give priority treatment to certain classes—expectant and nursing mothers, children, school children in particular, and later on, we hope, adolescents."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th April, 1946; Vol. 422, c. 45.]
The right hon. Gentleman there forecast exactly the form of the National Health Service Act as amended by this Bill, because after the passage of this Bill that service for the first time gives dental priority to expectant and nursing mothers, children—school children in particular—and adolescents. The ambition which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale laid claim to back in April, 1946, is now to be fulfilled by my right hon. Friend.
7.30 p.m.
It may strike hon. Members opposite, as it strikes me, that it is most remarkable that those words should have been used by the Minister in introducing a Bill which gave no priority whatsoever, but which threw free dental treatment open to the population. I was, therefore, hopeful when my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod), invited the right hon. Gentleman for Ebbw Vale to explain how that priority had been secured in the 1946 Act. The reply was this:
I could not in fact have provided the priority services without taking over many functions from the local authorities. I should have had to take them over entirely. It was

therefore much simpler to take the whole population into the dental service and work off the hump, and the hump has been worked off."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th March, 1952; Vol. 498; c. 897.]
This is a new conception of priority. Priority was given to school children, nursing mothers and adolescents by leaving them at the end of the queue and dealing with everybody else in front of them.

Mr. Baird: rose—

The Chairman: I must ask the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird), to resume his seat for—

Mr. Baird: But the hon. Member is making such misleading statements.

The Chairman: I am not going to tolerate this sort of thing.

Mr. Powell: When everyone else in front of them in the queue was dealt with, then at last priority was secured for the priority classes.

Mr. Baird: The hon. Member has not the courage to give way.

Mr. Powell: If that is what was meant by the words which I have quoted from the Second Reading speech of 1946, it is a most extraordinary description for throwing open the dental service to the whole population, to "work off the hump."
I am going to offer to the Committee—because this is a very important and puzzling matter—the only explanation I can think of as to how these words came into the right hon. Gentleman's Second Reading speech. They applied to a Bill which he found in the pigeon-holes of the Ministry of Health when he came into office in 1945 which would, in fact, have assured priority to those people by waiting until they were served before throwing the service open to the general public. That was the intention of the Coalition Government. He found that Bill and the Second Reading speech in draft. This paragraph, but not the accompanying provisions of the Bill, were taken over in extenso into his Second Reading speech. I offer that solution to hon. Gentlemen opposite for their personal and private study in the coming weeks along with the necessary documents.
We claim that by the provisions of this Clause my right hon. Friend for the first time is securing to these priority classes the priority to which everyone gives lip service. That is because that priority will be destroyed if this Amendment and the consequential Amendments are accepted that they must be rejected by the Committee.

Mr. Crookshank: We have had—

Mr. Logan: rose—

Mr. Crookshank: It does not make any difference.

The Chairman: I called on the Minister.

Mr. Logan: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to withdraw?

Mr. Crookshank: I am not. It is the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman's party and it is not for me to withdraw it. I am not closing the debate. We have had an interesting debate and a fairly wide one, a good deal wider than I anticipated.

Mr. Logan: What are you giggling at?

The Chairman: I am not giggling at all.

Mr. Logan: I am not speaking to you. I did not mean any disrespect to you, Sir Charles, but I expect some respect from those who sit on the other side of the Committee, and I am alluding to hon. Gentlemen there.

Mr. Crookshank: I cannot see what goes on behind me.

Mr. Logan: If the right hon. Gentleman could see what goes on behind him, he could keep control.

Mr. Crookshank: I was saying we have had a very interesting and rather wider debate than I had anticipated, but the speech which has just been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), has brought us back to what is of real significance in the subject which we are discussing, and that is the means of getting the priorities right. He has pointed out that this Clause, when eventually passed with the Amendment which I hope we will adopt later,

should give priority to mothers, schoolchildren and adolescents. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said about the drafting of the Bill, and I shall be very happy, as a result of this Bill, to see that come about.
Let us for one moment consider what is being done here. If the fees are under £1—and that is apart from the clinical examination because of our previous Amendment which is now incorporated in the Bill—the whole cost will be payable. If the amount is 15s., 17s. 6d. or whatever it may be for the course of treatment, it will have to be paid for by the patient, but if it is over £1 payment is limited to £1. The cost under the 1951 Act and under this Bill combined cannot exceed £4 5s.
The argument which this Amendment raises is whether that is the right way round to do it. If the fee is under £1, should the whole cost be payable by the patient or should the treatment be free up to £1 and then the patient pay all above it? That is the argument between us, but we must not overlook the fact that we are concerned here, quite apart from the important aspect of the priority classes, the conservative work and the purely dental side, to assist—I am sorry to say this again because I know how it irritates hon. Members opposite—in the recovery of our financial and economic situation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] I knew that would set hon. Gentlemen off, but we must not lose sight of the fact that that is one of the elements of the argument we are presenting to the Committee. It is quite certain that if the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman were adopted, it might well mean the loss of the greater part of the estimated saving under this Bill.

Miss Herbison: rose—

Mr. Crookshank: I do not want to delay the Committee and there are several others who want to speak.
It is a fact that if the Amendment were adopted, the greater part of the estimated savings—and they are considerable, for they are estimated at £6 million during a full year—would be lost, and it is one of the objects of this Bill to secure those savings. In point of fact, the amount charged would, if the Amendment were adopted, largely be for the expensive crowns and inlays. If the first £1 is free,


there would be a strong inducement to patients to have only part of the necessary treatment done.

Mr. Manuel: Conservation.

Mr. Crookshank: Only part of it. Patients would tend, human nature being what it is—I am not blaming anyone—to have treatment costing up to £1 and then they would stop. They would go again another time and have treatment up to nearly £1 and then stop. They would have a whole series of treatments free, each one after some interval of time, and each aggregating less than £1. It has surely always been the object of dentistry to persuade patients to make themselves fit dentally, but the cost of a whole series of partial treatments would largely be wasted and would not serve the purpose that those who go to dentists should have their teeth properly looked after.

Mr. Janner: I cannot follow at all the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. Is he suggesting that people should have dental treatment and pay for it, or that there are not enough dentists to give that treatment because they have to look after the younger people? I do not see the point of his argument.

Mr. Crookshank: I am sorry, but I am trying to deal with the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman opposite to the effect that the first £1 should be free. I am saying, in reply, that there would be a strong inducement for people continuously to try to have treatment which did not exceed £1 every time they went for it. [Interruption.] I wish the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West, (Mr. Janner), would not keep interrupting. I am replying to the argument of his right hon. Friend by saying that there would be an inducement to people to continue to have short courses of treatment and never a complete course.

Mr. Baird: There is an Amendment in my name subsequently, suggesting that over £1 the proportion of one-tenth should be levied on the patient.

The Chairman: We can deal with only one Amendment at a time.

Mr. Crookshank: I really cannot get myself out of order and lead the Committee astray beyond the argument which the right hon. Gentleman opposite put before us. I think it might be assumed that the cost of a series of partial treatments

would largely be wasteful expenditure. To keep on going to the dentist and not getting the whole thing done at the time when it ought to be done would be wrong. By our suggestion that anything over £1 should be free we would get a situation that once that expenditure had been passed, there would be no deterrent on, or disincentive to, the person whose teeth ought to be attended to from going on and having them properly looked after. I quite agree that it is a matter of argument as to which course might in the long run end in the better conservation of teeth, but I think our way would do it better.
7.45 p.m.
That is not the only consideration that I have in mind. We are attempting to deal with the financial situation as well. The Amendment would take away a great amount of what might be collected by this system.

Mr. Logan: Do I understand the Minister to say that it is the financial situation which dictates policy and not the question of proper treatment for patients?

Mr. Crookshank: It is a combination of factors which come into this matter, but by arranging the charges as we propose, we hope to achieve the priorities which the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) referred to long ago and which have been mentioned by my hon. Friend. That is the issue between us. If it is true that some form of charge would act as an incentive for a better dental service, as the figures about the Scottish situation may or may not show—[Interruption.] They certainly show an increase in the school dental service.

Mr. Ross: They also show an increase in the ordinary dental service.

Mr. Crookshank: They show an increase after there has been a decrease.

Mr. Ross: No.

Mr. Crookshank: Yes, certainly. The charges may or may not be a factor, but we have to build up after we have destroyed. We cannot destroy and then build up, except gradually. If, therefore, charges do turn out, when all these figures and other considerations have


been taken into account, to have the effect of improving the school dental service, as they may well have—I am not saying it conclusively because there are many unknown factors in the situation, but it looks as if it might be the case—and if we still want to benefit the priority classes and provide incentives which are directed to conserving the teeth of young children, which we all agree ought to be the highest priority of all; and if, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite says, his Amendment brings about greater incentives—those were his words—for older people, then the Amendment fails in its objective. By means of his Amendment the right hon. Gentleman would produce far smaller charges and pro tanto as charges help to bring about a better and larger school dental service, as in the Scottish case may be true, it seems to me to be an argument against the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment.

Mr. Baird: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not want to mislead the Committee. The position is that since the charges for dental work were imposed, the number of school dentists has risen over the past year by 40. They now stand at under 900. In order to get an efficient school dental service we have been told that we need between 2,000 and 3,000 dentists. How long have we to wait? There is no proof that by the method proposed by the Government we shall get that establishment.

An Hon. Member: We are moving upwards.

Mr. Crookshank: Of course, there is no proof, but as my hon. Friend has just said, we are moving up instead of moving down. Never mind whether the change is by an amount of 20, 30 or 40. If it is a change in the right direction, we should encourage it. The position was getting worse, but it is now getting better, and we want to see it get better still. I really cannot take the right hon. Gentleman's evidence as completely conclusive. It was he who said just now that dental health in our schools was better ever since the Health Service started, but that is completely contradicted by others who have spoken. In the last two years the teeth of school children have got worse owing to the priorities having gone wrong. We want

to see them get better. Of course all these things are not capable of proof for years to come. We can only observe tendencies today, but the tendencies are in the direction I have indicated.
I recommend the Committee not to accept the Amendment. Frankly, I do not think it would have the effect which any of us want to bring about, excepting, of course, that it would enable a far larger number of adults to continue to get free treatment. That in itself may or may not be a good thing, but there is no incentive in it towards a priority system. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale said he wanted to get his priorities right, and I think we all do. We feel on the whole that the suggestions we have made in this Clause should have that effect. As I say, that is not capable of proof now, but it is a move in the right direction. Because I do not feel that the Amendment is a move in the right direction, having to recommend a choice one way or the other, I ask the Committee to accept our solution.

Miss Herbison: Before the Minister sits down, will he give me a reply to my question? We do not yet know whether this Bill is to apply to Scotland. We have doubts if it is to apply, because I am certain that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who has attended most of these debates, could have dealt with some of the Amendments much better than the Ministers who have dealt with them. Could we have an answer to that question?

Mr. Crookshank: The hon. Lady only has to read the Bill.

Miss Herbison: I am not satisfied with that. I have adduced reasons why it seems to this side of the Committee that the Amendment we have down should be accepted, with the result that Scotland will be excluded. Is that Amendment to be accepted or is it not?

Mr. Logan: I have listened with great amusement to Members in various parts of the Committee, especially to the hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod), whose volubility was great but whose knowledge of the subject on which he was speaking was very small. I do not profess to be a dentist, neither do I profess to be a doctor, but I have some knowledge of the working of the


Insurance Acts from 1912 to 1948, having administered them nationally. We have had quotations today from books. I shall give quotations from life dealing with those who came to get treatment. Older hon. Members will remember—not younger Members, because they do not know anything, even today—the "ninepence for fourpence" when the Lloyd George Act was first introduced. That is going back a long time. When we consider the great benefits derived, not only by those who were compulsory contributors but also by those who were voluntary contributors, we find that the nation was much better for the treatment.
The right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) seems, like myself, to be getting the worse for wear. If he would only reason as he did in his younger days, it would be much better for the Committee. I admit we are both getting past the mark, but we ought to be able to speak a little common sense to younger Members. Therefore, I hope I may be able to refresh his memory. The Act of the Liberal Party of that day was meant to benefit the whole nation—

Mr. Powell: indicated dissent.

Mr. Logan: It is no good the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), wagging his head. He has been doing nothing else all day.

Mr. Powell: Can I help the hon. Member on that?

Mr. Logan: It is a good job his head is not quite loose or he would lose it.

Mr. Powell: rose—

Mr. Logan: No, I have sat here for four hours and I want to have my say. The hon. Member has had enough to say. That Act was passed to give benefits to the people through a health service, and I know the great benefit which it provided in the great industrial area of Liverpool. Our infirmaries, our hospitals, our surgeries were packed with people day and night wanting medical treatment simply because the dental service they had been receiving was either inadequate or non-existent.
How many people in poor areas ever had treatment for teeth? I know that children in decent homes were taught to

use the tooth brush, but in the homes of the poor they did not know what a tooth brush meant. They were more likely to use a sweeping brush to clean their teeth. But, as they were gradually educated, we found a better standard of health amongst the children in those areas. Instead of hon. Members quoting from journals and books, let them admit that the general health of our people is better than ever before.
It is a hard admission to make, but I admit that the Minister of Health knows his subject. I wish he did not. He knows what it is he is dealing with. When I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman, he replied, "Finance." Is not that what we are discussing? Is the system being abused? When I intervened I was asked whether I meant they should get a free service. There was no ambiguity in my reply, which was, "Yes, a free dental service for all who require it, because it is absolutely essential for the welfare of the people." I know that there is a difference of opinion in the Committee. Hon. Members talk about "conservation" and "priorities." It would be better to use words that the man and woman in the street can understand? Would it not be better to say, "We are giving no more pounds to the poor. If they want their teeth, let them pay for them. If they want attention, let them pay for it. We have paid enough and we will not give them any more."

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Is that why the hon. Member voted for the charges last year?

Mr. Logan: That would be an honest statement of fact. I say to hon. Members of the party opposite that I do not classify them as knowing nothing. They do know. They are trained in business. I wish our people knew how to take care of things as well as they do.
8.0 p.m.
I want our people, when they work and toil—in the field, in the factory, in the mines or in the ships—also to get the benefits of the wealth which they create: and if they are not able to pay, I want the State to pay for the things that are absolutely essential for the life of the man, woman and child. Therefore, it is a fair proposition to say that if a home which has a low income and which has children growing up, can find children


for the Army or for the Navy, for the defence of our land—I am not against having an army; but I want men and women to be healthy in order to be able to defend all that we hold sacred—attention should be paid to those who require our assistance in order to make them healthy.
I say this not for propaganda for the Labour Party, but from the viewpoint of investment. If parents, whether they be Tory or Labour, who have children are unable to pay for the care of them, the State should pay. I know that the plane of thought on the other side of the Committee is different. Those with wealth do not know what it means to those who are badly handicapped in life to have to part with a pound or two. The children of those who support the party opposite mean as much to the nation as do those of us on this side, and therefore my remarks apply to all, and not merely to one section of society.
From 35 years' experience I say that our best investment is to meet these incidental expenses. Members opposite say that we cannot afford the expense and that the charges are extravagant, but, surely, they have the power to regulate prices, as they have done with optical and dental treatment and dentures.
I am sorry that the Minister has stated that he cannot accept the Amendment. It is designed to meet a want which will be felt very greatly in thousands of homes, and especially by those in receipt of small wages. The outlay of £1 by homes whose income is only £5 or £6 a week will be a very heavy burden. The poor are found not only amongst the Tories, but with the Labour Party, and every parent will be anxious to know whether they are to be hit by this extra expense.
We on this side advocate that if the cost of treatment is up to £1, there should be no charge. That is simple enough, and that is the service I want to see. The nation would benefit as a result, and I trust that the Minister will accept our proposal, even though I have been, perhaps, a little vociferous and vehement, because I am earnest in what I say and I have seen these things and know what this added expense means to those who are poor. I know the difference between people who are happy and contented and

those who are downcast. If the Minister wants a healthy nation, he would be well advised to accept the Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I wish to correct an injustice which I unwittingly did to the right hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil), whose speech at Greenock in April of last year I quoted. When I quoted it first, I did so correctly in saying:
there were in Great Britain about 50 per cent. more dentists in the dental educational system than there are at present.
Afterwards, in an interchange, I gave the figure, which the right hon. Gentleman had quoted, of 800 as applying to Scotland. The first time I quoted the right hon. Gentleman, I did so correctly as applying to Great Britain. In my second quotation I did him an injustice, which I wish to correct.

Mr. Janner: We ought to direct our attention to the remarks that have been made by the Minister. I gathered that he was deeply concerned about the health of these children. He was also very deeply concerned about the financial gain that he would obtain from the Clause, and I am not altogether sure whether his concern was balanced more on the side of saving the money than on the side of saving the children's teeth.
If I were asked to explain the purpose of the Bill, I should answer that it was not to save the health of the people. It is to save a considerable sum of money at the expense of the health of the people. If the Minister wants to save the dental health of the country, why cannot he spend this money to provide more facilities for educating dentists and for giving more opportunity for training in the dental schools? He would then have available a larger number of dentists to deal with the children about whom he says be is so concerned, and he would not neglect those about whom we are concerned, including the children.
No one will be misled by the specious arguments that have been used by Members on the other side of the Committee to cover their tracks in this matter. They are out to reduce the amount that should be available for the benefit of the health of the people, and they are out to use for their purposes certain sums of money which would otherwise be available for benefiting the people's health. They are


trying to find ways and means by which they can cover their tracks, so that they will be able to argue that they are not reducing the benefits to the people, but that by taking away from them these vast sums of money they are creating priorities in the Health Services which are of such importance that they are of an overwhelming nature.
That will not do, and for many reasons. First, the statements of hon. Members opposite with regard to the numbers of the increase of dental surgeons who are available for children is not correct. Here I come to the argument of the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot)—the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, but "friend" I should prefer to call him—who has gone entirely wrong in this matter. I should like to give him the figures about which I made an intervention when he gave way.
Early in January, 1951, the number of dental officers available in the school dental service was 856; in January, 1952, it was 899, but that is not the end of the story. The whole-time equivalents were 690.22 as against 712, which is a difference of only 22, and the whole of the Government's argument has been based upon that increase of 22 dental surgeons who are available for that particular service. Why has not the right hon. Gentleman told us that there is a Bill about to be introduced into this House—I do not know what its success will be—to increase the number of people available to deal with the country's dental service?
Why does he not tell us that there are still dentists with very high qualifications whose services were utilised during the war, but who, because they happen to have foreign qualifications, are not allowed today to take part in either the school dental service or any other? Why does he tell us about these 22 people, about whom he is so concerned, when, if he utilised the services of these qualified practitioners of very many years' experience, who were used in our hospitals and elsewhere during the war and who are still available today, he would gain as many, or possibly even more, in numbers than he is going to do by this method?
What is very unhappy is the fact that a large number of people who are going to be affected adversely by this Clause, ought to have treatment which they will not be able to afford. We have not had

a single concession from the Government yet in this Bill with regard to the variety of people in different positions in life who ought to be looked after and who ought to receive the fullest facilities for obtaining dental treatment free. Let me quote just one set of people concerning whom I had hoped earlier to be able to move an Amendment, and who do come within the scope of this charge which is now to be made. I am talking about those people who, by the unanimous decision of the House of Commons in 1944, were considered, and ever since have been considered, as very deserving cases.
When the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944, was being enacted by this House, there was unanimous approval that it was a Measure of tremendous value in order to improve the conditions of men and women who had been disabled and who came within the definition of "disabled person "in that Act—
… a person who, on account of injury, disease or congenital deformity, is substantially handicapped in obtaining or keeping employment, or in undertaking work on his own account, of a kind which apart from that injury, disease or deformity would be suited to his age, experience and qualifications; and the expression 'disablement,' in relation to any person, shall be construed accordingly.
These persons are now going to be asked, in the same way as everybody else, to pay the first pound for the dental service. It is taking money out of one pocket and putting it into another, because, in addition to the fact that they would be called upon to pay, what the Minister overlooks is that they would have to appeal to another quarter to receive the money with which to pay.
8.15 p.m.
I have only one other point to make. Does not the Minister realise that, by means of the suggestions which I have made, and other suggestions which might emanate from his own fertile mind, the £6 million saving could be used to the advantage of the dental service of this country in a way which would bring not only health, but a considerable amount of happiness, to the whole of the community. Why is he attempting to deprive people of it?
He tells us that he is going to send people for clinical observation to the dentists free of charge and that he wants to encourage them to keep their teeth


healthy, but what on earth is the use of him sending people to dentists to be examined free of charge if he will not give them the facilities for being treated afterwards? The right hon. Gentleman is sending the people to be examined, and I assume he expects them to be treated if they need treatment. If they are treated, the services of dental surgeons will be used, and, therefore, the services of those dental surgeons to this extent will not be available to the children. If they are available for the children, they will not be available for the other persons.
Why cannot he give the people the opportunity of being examined free and facilities for free treatment? He cannot have it both ways. If he wants people to be treated, and he is inviting them to be examined free, he must give them the chance of being treated. If he gives them the chance of being treated, he must use the services of dental surgeons, whether the patients pay or they do not pay, and, if he employs dental surgeons for this purpose he cannot employ the same surgeons for the children, at the same time.
I put that to him, and I ask him to think again, in order to give the people of this country the opportunity of continuing to receive the treatment they require, without cutting down the educational system or reducing the opportunities for students, and I am sure that he will get a dental service capable of doing what is necessary in the country, instead of robbing the people of important services as he now proposes to do.

Mr. Angus Maude: After listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner), one feels that, after almost years in which this question of the finances of the National Health Service has been debated, both in health debates, Budget debates and Finance Bill debates, there seems to be almost no limit to the capacity of hon. Members opposite to listen to the facts without absorbing any of them at all.
It seems altogether incredible that the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West, still believes that what my right hon. Friend is seeking to do in this Bill is simply to take this money from patients in order, apparently, to devote it to something outside the Health Service

altogether. If the hon. Gentleman has understood what the last two Labour Chancellors of the Exchequer and his right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), have been saying in the last Parliament, he should by now have got it into his head that the purpose of the financial policy of the late Government—and of this Government—is to maintain the ceiling on the Health Service Expenditure at the figure at which it was fixed by the late Sir Stafford Cripps.
Since expenses in every branch of the service have been and still are steadily rising, if charges are not imposed in some directions in the service, then it will inevitably follow that the services provided will have to be reduced in other branches of the National Health Service. It is no good the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West, talking about the £6 million which could be used profitably in the dental service. He has got to show how, if this Amendment was carried, he would find the £6 million within the ceiling of the Health Service. Neither he nor any one of his hon. and right hon. Friends has told the Committee whether they would reduce the provisions of the hospital service.

Mr. Messer: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman? If he will read my speech in the debate on the Bill, he will find that I suggested ways by which that money could be saved.

Mr. Maude: I remember the hon. Gentleman's speech, and I withdraw that remark in his case. But, of course, the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West, has no such alibi. It is perfectly obvious from his speech that he has not listened to any of the arguments used, and he has entirely misconceived the purpose of the Bill. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland (Mr. Logan), to whom we always listen with great interest and respect because of his obvious sincerity, has failed to grasp the points at issue. He referred to the 1911 Act and stated quite erroneously that it applied to the whole population. He got on by easy stages to the 1948 Act and, as I understood him, suggested that a means test should be imposed upon anybody who could not afford to pay for the health services.
In addition, the hon. Member said that it was desirable that the Health Service


should be entirely free—a slightly inconsistent statement. But he still did not explain how he voted in favour of the charges on dentures and spectacles in the 1951 Bill. It surely should be obvious to him and to the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West that the action taken by the Government and by them in the course of debates and Divisions on the 1951 Bill make it entirely nonsensical for them to give us their tales of suffering tonight.
They must realise the purpose of this Bill. They must realise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod) have repeatedly stated, that it is perfectly possible for a financial provision of this kind to be consistent with, and indeed directed towards, improving a part of this Service. That is the point of this Bill, and if this Amendment were carried it would make complete nonsense of this Clause.

Mr. Ross: The speech of the hon. Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Maude) was probably the first we have heard from the other side of the House which had in it the authentic voice of Toryism, because there was in it none of the delightful and pleasant irrelevances about boosting up the school dental service and there was nothing about getting the priorities right.

Mr. Maude: Yes.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Member says it is simply a matter of raising money and saving money here in order to apply it to elsewhere.

Mr. Maude: I said precisely the opposite.

Mr. Ross: I took down precisely the words the hon. Member used, but he must have forgotten them or could not have been paying attention to what he was saying. He said that the purpose of the Bill was to save money on the Health Service in order to spend it elsewhere.

Mr. Maude: No.

Mr. Ross: Yes. We have had exactly the same point made by at least two other hon. Members, but they also gave us the impression that we could save money and at the same time do something that was good in itself. We have not had very

many figures from the other side of the Committee on the deterrent effect on the general service and how beneficial these charges will be in their effect on the school dental service. The only figures we had were given by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) and about a quarter of an hour after he had given them he had cause to get up and apologise to the Secretary of State for Scotland for them.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Utter rubbish. My figures were perfectly correct, except a second quotation.

Mr. Ross: I entirely agree with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that his figures were utter rubbish. The hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod), whose figures were supposedly quoted by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, called in aid certain aspects of development in the Scottish dental service and implied that the deterrent effect of the charges last year resulted in building up the school dental service and, by implication, playing down the general dental service.
What are the facts? As the Report of the Department of Health for Scotland states, the facts are that there has been an increase in the number of persons in the school dental service; but the Report said that the first reason has nothing at all to do with charges but has to do with better salaries. The actual increase is from the marvellous figure of 94 for the whole of Scotland to 104. But what is the picture on the other side—the general dental service? That figure has gone up from 1,251 dentists in January, 1951, to 1,254.

Mr. Maude: Instead of going down.

Mr. Ross: But it means that the supposedly great deterrent effect of the charges on dentures, which has reduced the expenditure on dentures by the Scottish Department from just over 60 per cent. of the total expenditure to over 30 per cent., has not had the effect of reducing the number of dentists in the general dental service. Actually it has increased it. Obviously, there is scope for more work and that work should be dental conservation treatment. The effect of what the Government are now proposing will be to reduce the possibility


of dental conservation treatment for people who need it very badly.
There is no country in which the neglect of teeth has shown itself more in ill-health and in bad teeth than my own country. I say that with regret and reluctance. Anyone who has taught, as I have, in the Gorbals in Glasgow, and moved around in the industrial areas of that city, knows quite well that the people of Scotland did not take any step to conserve their teeth because they could not afford it.
Incidentally, why is the Secretary of State for Scotland not here and why has he not spoken during this debate? Because the Government would not let him speak, as he let the cat out of the bag on Second Reading when he said that the reason for this Bill is that if people spend money on these charges they will not have the money to spend on other things. Judging by the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture today, people who spend more and more on food will also have less to spend on these essential services.
8.30 p.m.
The dental and general health of the people of Scotland will start to decline. There have been statements about the deterioration of the health of teeth in the last two or three years, but not a single figure has been produced to prove it. The Report of the Department of Health for Scotland shows that of the children inspected in Scottish schools, just over 2 per cent. had any defect in their teeth, and those defects could easily be remedied. Every fact and figure produced by the Government has been absolutely refuted.
In the interests of the general wellbeing of the people of this country, the Government should reconsider their decision. The Leader of the House said that it was a question of doing something in two different ways. What he was doing was to choose, as he thought, the better way; but what he was really doing was to choose the cheaper way. Obviously, if the people have to weigh up financial considerations before deciding whether they can afford to go to the dentist and have their teeth treated, I am convinced that this Bill will be an incentive to the decay of teeth and not an

incentive to the preservation of the health of our people. Anyone who is interested in the well-being of the country and in maintaining the fine standards of health that we have built up over the past five years—

Mr. Linstead: Nonsense.

Mr. Ross: It may be nonsense to the hon. Gentleman, but the fact that the children of Glasgow are today heavier and taller and that their teeth are better is the proof of what is right or wrong. It proves that hon. Members opposite are wrong. It proves that the Prime Minister is wrong and that he is failing in his duty to look after the well-being of the people.

Mr. John Rankin: I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words on this Amendment even at this late hour, because I, with a number of my Scottish colleagues, have an Amendment on the Paper whose effect would be much the same as this one which we are now discussing, except perhaps it would be more drastic. It would remove Scotland entirely from the effects of this Bill, in respect not merely of dentures but the whole of the provisions of the Bill.
I want to advance reasons why that Amendment might still be considered by the Government. The question has been asked whether this Measure applies to Scotland. I think the title of the Bill makes it clear that the Measure does apply to Scotland. This is causing a great deal of bitterness in Scotland because by this amending Bill the Minister is fundamentally and permanently changing the existing Scottish Act. He is treating it as an appendage of the English Measure. I would remind him that the two principal Acts, the English and the Scottish Acts, were brought in separately, and I think it is wrong that he should seek in one amending Measure to alter fundamentally the Scottish Act.
The approach to these two Measures was entirely different. The Scottish Bill was framed largely on a report of a special committee called the Scottish Health Services Committee, which reported in 1936, and in one part of its conclusions it stated that the vital statistics of Scotland were disquietingly less favourable—

It being Twenty-four Minutes to Nine o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Order, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 283; Noes, 303.

Division No. 98.]
AYES
[8.37 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Adams, Richard
Ewart, R.
Logan, D. G.


Albu, A. H.
Fernyhough, E.
MacColl, J. E.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Field, W. J.
McGhee, H. G.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Fienburgh, W.
McGovern, J.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Finch, H. J.
McInnes, J.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Follick, M.
McLeavy, F.


Awbery, S. S.
Foot, M. M.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Ayles, W. H.
Forman, J. C.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Baird, J.
Freeman, John (Watford)
Mainwaring, W. H.


Balfour, A.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Gibson, C. W.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Bartley, P.
Glanville, James
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Gooch, E. G.
Manuel, A. C.


Bence, C. R.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Benn, Wedgwood
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Mayhew, C. P.


Benson, G.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)
Mellish, R. J.


Beswick, F.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Messer, F.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Grey, C. F.
Mikardo, Ian


Bing, G. H. C.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mitchison, G. R.


Blackburn, F.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Monslow, W.


Blenkinsop, A.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Moody, A. S.


Blyton, W. R.
Grimond, J.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.


Boardman, H.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Morley, R.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Bowen, E. R.
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Bowles, F. G.
Hamilton, W. W.
Mort, D. L.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hannan, W.
Moyle, A.


Brockway, A. F.
Hardy, E. A.
Mulley, F. W.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hargreaves, A.
Murray, J. D.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Nally, W.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hastings, S.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hayman, F. H.
O'Brien, T.


Burke, W. A.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)
Oldfield, W. H.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Bridge)
Oliver, G. H.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Herbison, Miss M.
Orbach, M.


Callaghan, L. J.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Oswald, T.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hobson, C. R.
Padley, W. E.


Champion, A. J.
Holman, P.
Paget, R. T.


Chapman, W. D.
Holt, A. F.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Deame Valley)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Houghton, Douglas
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Clunie, J.
Hoy, J. H.
Pannell, Charles.


Cocks, F. S.
Hubbard, T. F.
Pargiter, G. A.


Coldrick, W.
Hudson, James, (Ealing, N.)
Parker, J.


Collick, P. H.
Hughes, Gledwyn (Anglesey)
Paton, J.


Cook, T. F.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pearson, A.


Corbel, Mrs. Freda
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pearl, T. F.


Cove, W. G.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Popplewell, E.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Porter, G.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Proctor, W. T.


Daines, P.
Janner, B.
Pryde, D. J.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Rankin, John


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Reeves, J.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Rhodes, H.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Richards, R.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Deer, G.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Delargy, H. J.
Keenan, W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvobshire)


Dodds, N. N.
Kenyon, C.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Donnelly, D. L.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Ross, William


Driberg, T. E. N.
King, Dr. H. M.
Royle, C.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Kinley, J.
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Edelman, M.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Short, E. W.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Lewis, Arthur
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Lindgren, G. S.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)




Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Slater, J.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Wigg, George


Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Wilcock, Group Captain C. A. B.


Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Thurtle, Ernest
Wilkins, W. A.


Snow, J. W.
Timmons, J.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Sorensen, R. W.
Tomney, F.
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Turner-Samuels, M.
Williams, David (Neath)


Sparks, J. A.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Steele, T.
Usborne, H. C.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Viant, S. P.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Wade, D. W.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Wallace, H. W.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Watkins, T. E.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brighlside)


Swingler, S. T.
Weitzman, D.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Sylvester, G. O.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Wyatt, W. L.


Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Wells, William (Walsall)
Yates, V. F.


Taylor, John (West Lothian)
West, D. G.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John



Thomas, David (Aberdare)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Bowden and Mr. Holmes.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Higgs, J. M. C.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Alport, C. J. M.
Crouch, R. F.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Crowder, John E. (Finchley)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Hirst, Geoffrey


Arbuthnot, John
Cuthbert, W. N.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Hollis, M. C.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Davidson, Viscountess
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Deedes, W. F.
Hope, Lord John


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)
Rigby, S. Wingfield
Hopkinson, Henry


Baker, P. A. D.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence


Baldwin, A. E.
Donner, P. W.
Howard, Gerald (Cambrideshire)


Banks, Col. C.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)


Barber, A. P. L.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Barlow, Sir John
Drayson, G. B.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Baxter, A. B.
Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hurd, A. R.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Duthie, W. S.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Erroll, F. J.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Fell, A.
Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Finlay, Graeme
Jennings, R.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Fisher, Nigel
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Birch, Nigel
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Bishop, F. P.
Fletcher, Walter (Bury)
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Black, C. W.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Johnson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Bocthby, R. J. G.
Fort, R.
Kaberry, D.


Bossom, A. C.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Keeling, Sir Edward


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Lambert, Hon. G.


Braine, B. R.
Gage, C. H.
Lambton, Viscount


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollak)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Gammans, L. D.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Leather, E. H. C.


Brooman-White, R. C.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Glyn, Sir Ralph
Legh, P. R. (Petersheld)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Godber, J. B.
Lindsay, Martin


Bullard, D. G.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Linstead, H. N.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Gough, C. F. H.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Bullus, Wing-Commander E. E.
Gower, H. R.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Burden, F. F. A.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Lockwood, Lt.-Col J. C.


Butcher, H. W.
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Low, A. R. W.


Carson, Hon. E.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Cary, Sir Robert
Harden, J. R. E.
Lucas, P. B. (Brantford)


Channon, H.
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
McAdden, S. J.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
McCallum, Major D.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)


Cole, Norman
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Colegate, W. A.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
McKibbin, A. J.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hay, John
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Heald, Sir Lionel
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Heath, Edwarl
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Cranborne, Viscount
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)







Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Pitman, I. J.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Powell, J. Enoch
Storey, S.


Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Markham, Major S. F.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Profumo, J. D.
Studholme, H. G.


Marples, A. E.
Raikes, H. V.
Sutcliffe, H.


Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Rayner, Brig. R.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)
Redmayne, E.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Maude, Angus
Remnant, Hon. P.
Teeling, W.


Maudling, R.
Renton, D. L. M.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Maydon, Lt. Cmdr. S. L. C.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Medlicott, Brig. F.
Robertson, Sir David
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Mellor, Sir John
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Thorneycroft, R. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Molson, A. H. E.
Robson-Brown, W.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Tilney, John


Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Roper, Sir Harold
Turner, H. F. L.


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Turton, R. H.


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Russell, R. S.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Ryder, Capt R. E. D.
Vane, W. M. F.


Nicholls, Harmar
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Vesper, D. F.


Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Wakefield, Sir. Wavell (Marylebone)


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Scott, R. Donald
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Nugent, G. R. H.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Nutting, Anthony
Shepherd, William
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Oakshott, H. D.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Watkinson, H. A.


Odey, G. W.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Wellwood, W.


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Snadden, W. McN.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Soames, Capt. C.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Osborne, C.
Spearman, A. C. M.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Partridge, E.
Speir, R. M.
Wills, G.


Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Perkins, W. R. D.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Wood, Hon. R.


Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
York, C.


Peyton, J. W. W.
Stevens, G. P.



Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Pilkington, Capt R. A.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Mr. Drewe and




Mr. Richard Thompson.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions on Amendments, moved by a Minister of the Crown, of which notice had been given, to Clause 2 and the further Question necessary to complete the Proceedings on that Clause.

Amendments made: In page 2, line 26, leave out from the first "of," to "to," and insert: "dentures or the addition of teeth bands or wires."

In line 29, leave out "sixteen," and insert "twenty-one."

In line 29, leave out from "or," to the end of line 32.—[Mr. Crookshank.]

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 298; Noes, 284.

Division No. 99.]
AYES
[8.49 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Carson, Hon. E.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Bennett, William (Woodside)
Cary, Sir Robert


Alport, C. J. M.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Channon, H.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Birch, Nigel
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)


Anstruther Gray, Major W. J.
Bishop, F. P.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)


Arbuthnot, John
Black, C. W.
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Boothby, R. J. G.
Cole, Norman


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Bossom, A. C.
Colegate, W. A.


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Conant, Maj R. J. E.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)
Boyle, Sir Edward
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert


Baker, P. A. D.
Braine, B. R.
Cooper-Key, E. M.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)


Baldwin, A. E.
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)
Cranborne, Viscount


Banks, Col. C.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.


Barber, A. P. L.
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Barlow, Sir John
Brooman-White, R. C.
Crouch, R. F.


Baxter, A. B.
Browne, Jack (Govan)
Crowder, John E. (Finchley)


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Crowder, Petra (Ruislip—Northwood)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Bullard, D. G.
Cuthbert, W. N.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Bullock, Capt. M.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Bullus, Wing-Commander E. E.
Davidson, Viscountess


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Burden, F. F. A.
Deedes, W. F.


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaslon)
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Digby, S. Wingfield




Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Profumo, J. D.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Raikes, H. V.


Donner, P. W.
Johnson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Keeling, Sir Edward
Redmayne, M.


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Drayson, G. B.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Renton, D. L. M.


Drewe, C.
Lambkin, Viscount
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Robertson, Sir David


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Duthie, W. S.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Robson-Brown, W.


Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Roper, Sir Harold


Erroll, F. J.
Lindsay, Martin
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Fell, A.
Linstead, H. N.
Russell, R. S.


Finlay, Graeme
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Fisher, Nigel
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Fletcher, Walter (Bury)
Low, A. R. W.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Fort, R.
Lucas, P. B. (Brantford)
Scott, R. Donald


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stene)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Scott-Miller, Comdr. R.


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
McAdden, S. J.
Shepherd, William


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
McCallum, Major D.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Gage, C. H.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Gammans, L. D.
McKibbin, A. J.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Snadden, W. McN.


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Soames, Capt. C.


Glyn, Sir Ralph
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Godber, J. B.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Speir, R. M.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Gough, C. F. H.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Gower, H. R.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Graham, Sir Fergus
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Stevens, G. P.


Gridley, Sir Arnold
Markham, Major S. F.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Marples, A. E.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Harden, J. R. E.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Storey, S.


Hare, Hon. J. H.
Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Maude, Angus
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maudling, R.
Studholme, H. G.


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Sutcliffe, H.


Harvey, Air Cdre A. V. (Macclesfield)
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Mellor, Sir John
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Molson, A. H. E.
Teeling, W.


Hay, John
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Heald, Sir Lionel
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Heath, Edward
Mott-Radolyffe, C. E.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. (Croydon, W.)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Higgs, J. M. C.
Nicholls, Harmar
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Turner, H. F. L.


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Turton, R. H.


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Hirst, Geoffrey
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Vane, W. M. F.


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Hollis, M. C.
Nutting, Anthony
Vosper, D. F.


Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Oakshott, H. D.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Hope, Lord John
Odey, G. W.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Hopkinson, Henry
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Watkinson, H. A.


Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
On-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Osborne, C.
Wellwood, W.


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Partridge, E.
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Hurd, A. R.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Wills, G.


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Pitman, I. J.
Wood, Hon. R.


Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)
Powell, J. Enoch
York, C.


Jennings, R.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)



Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Butcher and Mr. Kaberry.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Bacon, Miss Alice


Adams, Richard
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Baird, J.


Albu, A. H.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Balfour, A.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Awbery, S. S.
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Ayles, W. H.
Bartley, P.







Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Orbach, M.


Bence, C. R.
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Oswald, T.


Benn, Wedgwood
Hamilton, W. W.
Padley, W. E.


Benson, G.
Hannan, W.
Paget, R. T.


Beswick, F.
Hardy, E. A.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hargreaves, A.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Bing, G. H. C.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Pannell, Charles


Blackburn, F.
Hastings, S.
Pargiter, G. A.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hayman, F. H.
Parker, J.


Blyton, W. R.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)
Paton, J.


Boardman, H.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Pearson, A.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Herbison, Miss M.
Peart, T. F.


Bowen, E. R.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Bowles, F. G.
Hobson, C. R.
Popplewell, E.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Holman, P.
Porter, G.


Brockway, A. F.
Holt, A. F.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Houghton, Douglas
Proctor, W. T.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hoy, J. H.
Pryde, D. J.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hubbard, T. F.
Rankin, John


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Reeves, J.


Burke, W. A.
Hughes, Gledwyn (Anglesey)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rhodes, H.


Callaghan, L. J.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Richards, R.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Champion, A. J.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Chapman, W. D.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Clunie, J.
Janner, B.
Ross, William


Cocks, F. S.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Royle, C.


Coldrick, W.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)


Coltick, P. H.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Cook, T. F.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Corbel, Mrs. Freda
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Cove, W. G.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Short, E. W.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Keenan, W.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Kenyon, C.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Daines, P.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Slater, J.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
King, Dr. H. M.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Kinley, J.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Snow, J. W.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lever, Harold (Cheatham)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Sparks, J. A.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lewis, Arthur
Steele, T.


Deer, G.
Lindgren, G. S.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Delargy, H. J.
Lipton, Lt-Col. M.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Dodds, N. N.
Logan, D. G.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Donnelly, D. L.
MacCall, J. E.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Driberg, T. E. N.
McGhee, H. G.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
McGovern, J.
Swingler, S. T.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McInnes, J.
Sylvester, G. O.


Edelman, M.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
McLeavy, F.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Ewart, R.
Mellalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Fernyhough, E.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Field, W. J.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Thurtle, Ernest


Fienburgh, W.
Manuel, A. C.
Timmons, J.


Finch, H. J.
Marcwand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Tomney, F.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)




Follick, M.
Mayhew, C. P.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Foot, M. M.
Mellish, R. J.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Forman, J. C.
Messer, F.
Usborne, H. C.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mikardo, Ian
Viant, S. P.


Freeman, John (Watford)
Mitchison, G. R.
Wade, D. W.


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Monslow, W.
Wallace, H. W.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Moody, A. S.
Watkins, T. E.


Gibson, C. W.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Glanville, James
Morley, R.
Weitzman, D.


Gooch, E. G.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Wells, William (Walsall)


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Mort, D. L.
West, D. G.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)
Moyle, A.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mulley, F. W.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Grey, C. F.
Murray, J. D.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Nally, W.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianally)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Wigg, George


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
O'Brien, T.
Wilcock, Group Captain C. A. B.


Grimond, J.
Oldfield, W. H.
Wilkins, W. A.


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Oliver, G. H.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)







Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Wyatt, W. L.


Williams, David (Neath)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Yates, V. F.


Williams, Rev. Llwelyn (Abertillery)
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)



Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Bowden and Mr. Holmes

Clause 3.—(POWER TO VARY OR ABOLISH CERTAIN CHARGES.)

9.0 p.m.

Sir Edward Boyle: I beg to move, in page 2, line 42, to leave out "vary," and to insert "lessen."
It will be for the convenience of the Committee if we may also take the two following Amendments, in page 3, line 3, to leave out Subsection (3), and in line 9, to leave out from "section," to "shall," in line 10. The purpose of the Amendments is very similar to that of an Amendment moved to the Bill last year by the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer). I am pleased on this occasion to find myself in agreement with the hon. Member, whose contributions to these debates are always listened to with such respect on both sides of the House.
The purpose is a very simple one. We suggest that, when certain charges are written into a Bill, if a future Government wish to increase them they should do so by bringing fresh legislation before the House instead of simply increasing them by means of a Statutory Instrument. The reason for that is again very simple, that a Statutory Instrument cannot be amended, not even a Statutory Instrument which requires an affirmative Resolution of the House.
That is why we suggest in the Amendment that my right hon. Friend might be ready to leave out "vary" and to insert "lessen" in order to ensure that if it were ever desired to increase the charges in either this Bill or last year's Act, the Government of the day would have to bring a fresh Measure before the House.

Mr. McNeil: It may facilitate business if I say that I and my right hon. Friends are very anxious to support the Amendment.
I am not at all being hostile to the Chair, although I know I am verging on the indelicate, but I should be interested—I imagine that the Committee would be, too—to learn why the verb "lessen" is preferable to the verb "reduce" in an Amendment standing in my name and the names of right hon. Friends of mine which

has not been selected. That is the only point I have to raise, and if I am embarrassing the Chair, I hope that I shall be immediately pardoned. All of us who are not machinery-minded people are from time to time tremendously interested in the little nuances which have to be borne in mind by the Chair.
We are anxious that the Minister of Health should accept the Amendment. If he is now to give us something, it will be the first occasion in these Committee proceedings.

Mr. Iain MacLeod: I should like to utter a sentence or two which, incidentally, might help to clear up the point which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) has in mind. As the right hon. Gentleman and the ex-Minister of Health know, this point is practically identical with one that I urged on the Socialist Government upon the Second Reading of the Measure a year ago. I was the only person who raised the point and I was the first hon. Member to put down an Amendment. [Interruption.] Certainly I was.
Now that the applause for my activities has died down, perhaps I might add a word on the form of the Amendments and perhaps suggest that the reason the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment was not accepted was that it was not accompanied by the consequential Amendments which alone make sense of the Amendment now before the Committee.
If I might add one more thing to solace the right hon. Gentleman, it would be that when I originally put the Amendment on the Order Paper, I also used the word "reduce," but when I knew that he and some of his right hon. Friends had used the same word I could not face the embarrassment of being made to appear to support their own choice, and so I selected another word. That explains the difference between "reduce" and "lessen" which, I agree, is rather dancing on a pin-point, but it is fair to add that the consequential Amendments alone enable this Amendment to be reasonably debated.

Mr. Grimond: I am quite unable to compete in this contest of virtue, but I also support this Amendment for the reasons advanced by the hon. Member for Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle). I should only like to add that the objection some of us feel to the Bill in general is that it lacks the sort of precision which this Amendment will give to it, and although the Minister in charge has assured us that he only intends to levy charges on certain articles, there are powers given under this Bill which go far beyond anything we beleive is the Government's intention. I hope in this case the Minister will accept this Amendment which has been moved from his own side of the Committee, and limit himself and his successors to this extent, at any rate. I wish that in other respects he had written into the Bill the precise charges he intended to apply.

Mr. Crookshank: This has been an interesting little debate. I have discovered that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod) claims to have invented the word, "lessen." Very few of us can claim to have invented any words in the English language. He then went on to give a little bit of instruction to the Opposition on how they should draft Amendments. I do not know why he should give that away, but I think it was his generous nature. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) asked me to accept this Amendment by making a short speech which, he said, might facilitate business. That is such a remarkable attitude compared with anything we have had up to now during the passage of the Bill that I can only do likewise, and accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 3, line 3, leave out subsection (3).

In line 9, leave out from "section," to "shall," in line 10.—[Sir E. Boyle.]

Mr. McNeil: I beg to move, in page 3, line 14, to leave out from the first "Act)," to "shall," in line 15.
If the right hon. Gentleman would indicate by a nod of his head that he was prepared to accept this Amendment, he could depend on my talking no further. There is a well-known gentleman who passed by on the other side of the road,

and the right hon. Gentleman has a great habit of looking on the other side of the road.
The object of this Amendment is quite plain to the Committee. We are anxious to give the Government an opportunity of explaining their intentions as to the duration of this proposed enactment. As the Bill stands at present, they could draw the necessary subsection from Section 5 of the 1951 Act, which puts a period to the Measure which we previously offered to the House and which the Houst accepted. It will have been plain to the Committee throughout these proceedings—and I am not complaining about it—that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends have opposed various Amendments not because they were bad or unhelpful in their intentions, but because the Government did not believe we could afford the improvements which my hon. and right hon. Friends were anxious should be included in the Bill.
There is a very simple question to put to the right hon. Gentleman here. Does he anticipate that economic conditions will not improve in any period? Does he anticipate that there will be no termination to our re-armament obligations. If he does not, it is, of course, quite reasonable that he should oppose the acceptance of the Amendment which we offer. We have heard a great many optimistic and boastful statements about the ability of right hon. Gentlemen opposite to cope with our economic difficulties. If they really believe the loud shouts with which they occasionally comfort themselves, they must be prepared to put a term to the Bill. If they were to adopt our proposal and amend Clause 3 as we suggest, they would become consistent in their arguments.
It has been said from time to time, rather jeeringly, that in 1951 we reluctantly accepted the proposals which limited the operation of our enactment to 1954, plus the possibility, by Resolution of the House, of extending its operation for one year. I have never accepted the criticism that we did so reluctantly. My hon. Friends at that time made out a good, strong case, and we were glad to accept that good, strong case. The case tonight is equally strong.
The Government cannot escape from the Amendment unless they are prepared to say that they have no confidence in


their power and find no comfort in their boasting, that they are not really masters of the present economic situation and do not expect to be masters of it in the next three years. That is a simple, straightforward piece of reasoning which most people in the country are able to understand. I hope very much that the Minister will continue in the conciliatory and laudable frame of mind which he has so recently found during the proceedings of the Committee, and will accept the Amendment forthwith.

Mr. Crookshank: I listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, but this time I am afraid I cannot oblige him in the way I did on the previous occasion. Section 5 of the Act limits the power to charge for dentures after 1954. As we see the situation now, we consider that it would be a precaution, perhaps no more, that that should be deleted and that there should not be a stop to these powers in 1954.
The right hon. Gentleman asks: Does that mean that we have no confidence in our future, and that we are not masters of the economic situation and so on? It does not mean any more than that the future is rather uncertain, to put it mildly, as it was in the time of the right hon. Gentleman. After all, we have to remember that there were three major financial crises during the occupancy of the Government by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is the dreadful situation which they left us to tackle—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes—which is the cause of the Bill at all. We cannot make any forecast of what will for certain happen. There have been certain recoveries and improvements since we took office, and we hope that they may continue, in spite of the sacrifices which they are putting on our people, of which this Bill is one of the examples. I am sorry that it should be so, but this is one of the sacrifices in which the situation has involved us all.
9.15 p.m.
While we certainly hope that things will be much improved long before 1954, we do not think it would be wise to overlook the possibility that, after an improvement, there might be another recession. After all, things improved twice in the lifetime of the previous Government but ended in the worst recession

of all. So it might be that in the fluctuations of international affairs, in spite of every desire and effort on our part to improve things, we might not be, or whoever might be in authority in 1954 might not be, entirely successful.
So, on the whole, we have thought the right thing to do is to remove the date in the previous Act and make this a permanent Measure. We recognise that the Act of 1951 could have been continued annually after 1954 by a special Resolution, but we doubt whether this Bill is one which ought to come within that procedure. For these reasons, I ask the Committee not to accept this Amendment, and I am sorry that I cannot oblige the right hon. Gentleman, who was so kind and so lucid in introducing it.

Mr. McNeil: I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman will understand me if I do not indulge in any legitimate criticism of his, to me, rather fallacious assumptions about the ability of his Government to improve the economic conditions? Let us forget that. Even if we accept the fears of the right hon. Gentleman that these conditions will not be ended by 1954, that we might have another recession even if there has been another recovery, what is unreasonable in adopting our device and so carrying on the operation of this Measure in that respect from year to year?
Is a Committee like this so stupid that it would be unimpressed by any figures which the right hon. Gentleman would offer at any time? Is the House of Commons so obtuse, so irresponsible? Is the right hon. Gentleman telling us that, if he came to make a case for continuing these charges for a year, we would not listen to him? That is a little too much to ask. If the only intention of the right hon. Gentleman is to limit the operation of the National Health Service in this fashion during these times of economic repair, then surely he must meet the wish of my hon. Friends, which I have no doubt is the wish of the entire Committee.
Our wish is that we should take this to 1954 with power to renew annually. I plead with the right hon. Gentleman to say to us that he will have another look at this and will talk to us on the Report stage. It would be a tremendous comfort to the people in the country who


are affected by this. It would be one of the rare signs of confidence which the Government could exihibit to the people who at this stage do not believe that the Government have any ability to tackle these economic stresses. I am anxious to be quiet, tractable and non-provocative. I am anxious to improve the Bill. I am anxious to help these people. Do let the right hon. Gentleman promise the Committee that he will strain himself and come back on the Report stage having had another look at it.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I want to reinforce the appeal made by my right hon. Friend. I cannot see why the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept this Amendment. He made it perfectly clear that it is a comparatively moderate one, although it emphasises a point of real importance and a difference of attitude between the two sides of the Committee which matters, and matters very greatly, to the country, as my right hon. Friend has said. It is the difference between the conception of both these charges which are referred to here and the other charges which are referred to in the Bill, as being either permanent charges or temporary charges. In our view, the charges that were introduced last year were temporary charges to meet only a temporary need, and that was made perfectly clear; whereas these charges—and, indeed now, the charges of last year—are being enforced upon the country permanently.
It would, as my right hon. Friend said, always be competent for the Government to come to the House in 1954 and make this proposal, when it would be necessary for the House to discuss the matter again. That really was the issue which was of paramount importance. We felt that if by any mischance there was any necessity for them to be carried on longer, at least the House should have a full opportunity of discussing the matter afresh and of trying to evaluate the priorities that were involved; whereas the right hon. Gentleman is now throwing that completely overboard, not only for the new charges which he is imposing, but for the charges of last year, and is saying, "No, you shall not have the opportunity of raising this matter again in the House. It shall be entirely in the Government's hands to discuss the matter." That is quite wrong.
The right hon. Gentleman would not be weakening his position in any way if he were at least to say, as my right hon. Friend suggested, that he would take this matter back again. He will recognise that a great deal of the difficulty we have had in earlier stages of the Bill has been because of his unwillingness to show any desire even to consider matters that were put forward from this side; and as he has accepted one Amendment put forward by both sides of the Committee, it would at least be a gracious act to start a new period for the right hon. Gentleman if he were to say that he would consider the Amendment which has been moved from this side.

Mr. Linstead: I should like to put another consideration to the Committee. Whatever else we do with these charges, I urge that we do not put them on an annual basis. For the sake of the patients, put them on some basis of permanency. At any rate, do not have a known date when it is possible that a scale of charges may be abolished.
When one thinks of appliances or dental treatment, the last thing we want to do is to give the impression to patients that if only they wait until a certain month of the year, they may be able to get those appliances or treatment for a lower fee or for no fee at all. That would lead only to chaos and is, perhaps, the strongest reason for not accepting the Amendment.

Mr. Frederick Lee: It is important that we should look not only at what the Minister proposes to do at the end of the period, but what he is doing now. In the action that he has, I take it, authorised certain hospital boards to take, he is anticipating the date on which the Bill will become law.
I should like to inform the Committee that the Minister has authorised certain hospital boards to inform old age pensioners—I have in mind one in my constituency who is 76 years of age, and who has been ordered elastic stockings because he suffers from thrombosis—that they must sign an undertaking to the effect that if the Bill becomes law before their appliances are delivered, they will pay to the Minister £1. That is a disgusting thing to ask of a pensioner aged 76. Indeed, Mr. Hopkin Morris, I should like your guidance as to whether it is proper for the Minister so to anticipate legislation.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): We have passed that Amendment already, and the hon. Gentleman cannot discuss it now.

Mr. Lee: I submit that, while discussing the question of the date upon which this Bill operates, it is germane for me to ask whether it is in order for the right hon. Gentleman to force people—

The Deputy-Chairman: This is not a date which will operate at all; the hon. Gentleman has misconceived the Amendment.

Mr. Lee: The effect of this Amendment would be appreciable, whether it be permanent or temporary, and I am submitting, on a point of order, that I believe that the Minister has exceeded his powers, because, in cases where a doctor has ordered these things, he has told them to hold them back long enough to force people to pay for them.

Mr. James Hudson: I intervene briefly to reply to the point made by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead), who suggested it was a great mistake to give the impression to many people who would be affected that there would be some period towards

which they might look forward for an improvement in their situation if we gave a definite period of time during which this treatment would be given. I should think that, if that were in his mind, it would not very much affect the position, because in any case old people and others will be looking forward very anxiously to the time when this Government will have been ended, and that time cannot be very long. In any case, they will continue to look to the period when that devoutly-to-be-hoped-for event will bring a new service into their lives.

Mr. Gower: Will the hon. Gentleman permit me? Will you agree that the statement you have just made will—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member must address the Chair.

Mr. Gower: I am sorry, Mr. Hopkin Morris. Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the statement he has just made is just the kind of statement calculated to make people delay the treatment?

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 290; Noes, 278.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.—(EVASION OF CHARGES.)

Motion made, and Question proposed "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. John Wheatley: May I ask one of the Ministers to give a very short explanation of the justification of this particular Clause? This Clause introduces into the National Health Service something entirely new, and instead of making beneficiaries under the Health Service it imposes charges and also penal provisions against the people who come under the Service. It goes on first to give a person the right to recover money as a matter of a civil debt contract. I ask the Government without embellishment—because I do not want to take up the time of the Committee, as it is circumscribed—what justification there is for this entirely new principle of penal sanction against the people in the Health Service, and would it not have been sufficient for the purpose to have confined the power to that contained in the last part of the Clause, namely, recovery of the amount in question by way of civil debt?

Mr. Crookshank: The explanation is quite simple. We are trying to make the collection of the charges as simple as possible without people producing documents but merely by their making a declaration. If persons want to recover the money because they are beneficiaries under the National Assistance Board, all

they have to do is to produce their books. But it is possible that somebody else may use a person's book, and if there are dishonest people who would make a false representation in that way, most reasonably-minded people would think that that is a case where some effective punishment should be provided if it is necessary.

Mr. Wheatley: But will the right hon. Gentleman admit that this is a direct result of the introduction of these charges? It was something which could not have flowed from the charges which were provided in the Act of last year. Consequently, if the right hon. Gentleman is allowing such sums to be recovered by way of civil debt, why not consider that as sufficient remedy for the people administering the Service, instead of introducing this entirely new principle, for which he can pray in aid no previous Measure of a Labour Government? Is it not merely evidence of the very vicious and obnoxious principle embodied in this particular Bill?

Mrs. Braddock: I should like to take up the Minister's statement about one person producing another person's book for the purpose of obtaining a receipt in order to have refunded the amount of money paid at the chemist's. This seems to me to be a very peculiar situation. What is going to happen if the person in receipt of National Assistance is a chronic sick person at home who cannot go to the chemist or produce the book personally? Is it going to be a punishable offence if the next-door neighbour says out of the kindness of her heart—as they usually do—"I will take your book and your prescription to the chemist and I will obtain your medicine"? If I am to receive a receipt in order to get my shilling back again, I have to produce the book.
10.15 p.m.
Suppose the chemist says: "You are producing a book which does not belong to you and are asking for a receipt on a book of which you are not the owner." Is that to be considered a crime? I see that the Minister indicates dissent, but what provision has he made for that? A person may never be able to go to the chemist's. Suppose an aged or sick person goes to visit a relative. I hope the Minister is taking note of this point, which is of the greatest importance. Suppose the relative is some distance away


from the place where the money is usually collected or from the usual chemist. Another doctor is called in, because his own doctor may be miles away. The prescription will cost 1s. The book of somebody who is completely unknown will be produced at the chemist's for the purpose of getting the money back.
Can the chemist say: "This is not your book. It has nothing to do with you. You are getting medicine for somebody else, but I doubt whether you should have it, and I am going to make some inquiries regarding the matter"? This position arises out of the getting of receipts and the need for telling people that you are in receipt of National Assistance and need the money.
Let me put another point to the Minister. I attended a public meeting last week at which I was referring to these charges. A chemist in the audience asked me a question. I am always open to questions. The question which he asked was: "If a person brings me a prescription that he has received from his doctor and asks me how much it is going to cost, I may look at it and say that I can make the prescription up for 6d. I may ask him to pay me the 6d. so that he need not bother about getting a return of the shilling. What is to be the position in that case?" A person goes along with a book which shows that he is in receipt of National Assistance, and he asks for a receipt. The chemist suggests that he need not bother about the receipt because the medicine will only cost 6d. What provision has been made for that case? Is it to be an offence for a person to pay 6d. to a chemist rather than pay 1s., and is he to be able to get the 6d. refunded?
This matter is open to all sorts of abuses, and these particular Clauses of the Bill will take a lot of implementation. I have heard hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite talk about snoopers when they were in Opposition. A large number of snoopers will be needed to find out whether persons are committing an offence under the Bill, because the Government are making a very silly application of this principle in relation to medicines. Can we have an explanation of what will be an offence under the Bill, in the circumstances which I have described?
It may seem silly, but it is not. It will happen regularly, because there are thousands of people who cannot take their books to the chemist. These are matters of fundamental importance. The Government will meet them extensively when they try to put the Act into operation, and we and the people who will have to take advantage of this situation ought to be told plainly what are their rights and whether this will be considered a breach of the law for which a penalty can be imposed.

Mr. Crookshank: Of course it would not be an offence to act on behalf of a neighbour or friend. What is an offence here is knowingly making any false statement or misrepresentation—

Mrs. Braddock: Taking a receipt?

Mr. Crookshank: That is not making a false representation. One instance would be if a person set out to be somebody else knowingly. But that is not the only case. As the hon. Lady will remember, in Clause 2 we have excluded the expectant mother or one who has borne a child within the previous 12 months, or those under 21. We do not suggest that they should have to take any special document to the dentist in order to be exempted from the charge. If, however, a woman falsely represented that she had borne a child within the previous 12 months and it was afterwards discovered that she was getting treatment for nothing, she could be charged with knowingly making a false statement.

Mr. I. Mikardo: But are there not already sufficient powers to cover that?

Mr. Crookshank: I am advised not. That is why we are putting it in. These are three exceptions in a field where others will be charged.

Mr. Wheatley: Would not there be available an ordinary common law charge of attempted fraud? Why introduce this into the structure of the National Health Service where it has not appeared before? Surely the right hon. Gentleman consulted the Law Officers on this matter, including the Law Officers of Scotland?

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 293 Noes, 274.

Division No. 100.]
AYES
[9.29 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Browne, Jack (Govan)
Duthie, W. S.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.


Alport, C. J. M.
Bullard, D. G.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Bullock, Capt. M.
Erroll, F. J.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Bullus, Wing Cmdr. E. E.
Fell, A.


Arbuthnot, John
Burden, F. F. A.
Finlay, Graeme


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Fisher, Nigel


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Carson, Hon. E.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Cary, Sir Robert
Fletcher, Walter (Bury)


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)
Channon, H.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Baker, P. A. D.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Fort, R.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Baldwin, A. E.
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)


Banks, Col. C.
Cole, Norman
Fyte, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell


Barber, A. P. L.
Colegate, W. A.
Gage, C. H.


Barlow, Sir John
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)


Baxter, A. B.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Gammans, L. D.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Cranborne, Viscount
Glyn, Sir Ralph


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Godber, J. B.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Gomme-Duncan, Cot. A.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Crouch, R. F.
Gough, C. F. H.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Crowder, John E. (Finchley)
Gower, H. R.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Graham, Sir Fergus


Birch, Nigel
Cuthbert, W. N.
Gridley, Sir Arnold


Bishop, F. P.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Black, C. W.
Davidson, Viscountess
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Deedes, W. F.
Harden, J. R. E.


Bossom, A. C.
Digby, S. Wingfield
Hare, Hon. J. H.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Braine, B. R.
Donner, P. W.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Doughty, C. J. A.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Drayson, G. B.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Drewe, C.
Hay, John


Brooman-White, R. C.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.




Heald, Sir Lionel
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Heath, Edward
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Higgs, J. M. C.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Scott, R. Donald


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Markham, Major S. F.
Scott-Miller, Comdr. R.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Shepherd, William


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Marples, A. E.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Hollis, M. C.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Hope, Lord John
Maude, Angus
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Hopkinson, Henry
Maudling, R.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr, S. L. C.
Snadden, W. McN.


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Soames, Capt. C.


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Mellor, Sir John
Spearman, A. C. M.


Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Molson, A. H. E.
Speir, R. M.


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Hurd, A. R.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Stevens, G. P.


Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Nicholls, Harmar
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Storey, S.


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Sutcliffe, H.


Jennings, R.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Johnson, Eric ((Blackley)
Nutting, Anthony
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Oakshott, H. D.
Teeling, W.


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Odey, G. W.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Kaberry, D.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Keeling, Sir Edward
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thorneycroft, R. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Turner, H. F. L.


Lambert, Hon. G.
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Turton, R. H.


Lambton, Viscount
Osborne, C.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Partridge, E.
Vane, W. M. F.


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Vosper, D. F.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Lindsay, Martin
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Linstead, H. N.
Pitman, I. J.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Powell, J. Enoch
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.



Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Watkinson, H. A.


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Profumo, J. D.
Wellwood, W.


Low, A. R. W.
Raikes, H. V.
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Rayner, Brig. R.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Remnant, Hon. P.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Renton, D. L. M.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


McAdden, S. J.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


McCallum, Major D.
Robertson, Sir David
Wills, G.


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Robson-Brown, W.
Wood, Hon. R.


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
York, C.


McKibbin, A. J.
Roper, Sir Harold



McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Russell, R. S.
Mr. Studholme and




Mr. Redmayne.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Blackburn, F.
Clunie, J.


Adams, Richard
Blenkinsop, A.
Cocks, F. S.


Albu, A. H.
Blyton, W. R.
Coldrick, W.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Boardman, H.
Collick, P. H.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Cook, T. F.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Bowden, H. W.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Bowen, E. R.
Cove, W. G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Bowles, F. G.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Awbery, S. S.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Crosland, C. A. R.


Ayles, W. H.
Brockway, A. F.
Crossman, R. H. S.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Cullen, Mrs. A.


Baird, J.
Broughton, Dr. A D. D.
Daines, P.


Balfour, A.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Darling, George (Hillsborough)


Bartley, P.
Burke, W. A.
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Burton, Miss F. E.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)


Bence, C. R.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Benn, Wedgwood
Callaghan, L. J.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)


Benson, G.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Beswick, F.
Champion, A. J.
Deer, G.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Chapman, W. D.
Delargy, H. J.


Bing, G. H. C.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Dodds, N. N.







Donnelly, D. L.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Ross, William


Driberg, T. E. N.
King, Dr. H. M.
Royle, C.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Kinley, J.
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Edelman, M.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Short, E. W.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Lewis, Arthur
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Lindgren, G. S.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Ewart, R.
Logan, D. G.
Slater, J.


Field, W. J.
MacColl, J. E.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Fienburgh, W.
McGhee, H. G.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Finch, H. J.
McGovern, J.
Snow, J. W.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
McInnes, J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Foot, M. M.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Forman, J. C.
McLeavy, F.
Sparks, J. A.


Freeman, John (Watford)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Steele, T.


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Gibson, C. W.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Glanville, James
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Gooch, E. G.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Gordon, Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Swingler, S. T.


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Manuel, A. C.
Sylvester, G. O.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mayhew, C. P.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Grey, C. F.
Mellish, R. J.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Messer, F.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mitchison, G. R.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Grimond, J.
Monslow, W.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Moody, A. S.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Thurtle, Ernest


Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Morley, R.
Timmons, J.


Hamilton, W. W.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Tomney, F.


Hannan, W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. (Lewisham, S.)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Hardy, E. A.
Mort, D. L.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Moyle, A.
Usborne, H. C.


Hastings, S.
Mulley, F. W.
Viant, S. P.


Hayman, F. H.
Murray, J. D.
Wade, D. W.


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)
Nally, W.
Wallace, H. W.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Neal, Harold (Bolsever)
Watkins, T. E.


Herbison, Miss M.
Oldfield, W. H.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Oliver, G. H.
Weitzman, D.


Hobson, C. R.
Orbach, M.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Holman, P.
Oswald, T.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Holt, A. F.
Padley, W. E.
West, D. G.


Houghton, Douglas
Paget, R. T.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Hoy, J. H.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Hubbard, T. F.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Pannell, Charles
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Hughes, Gledwyn (Anglesey)
Pargiter, G. A.
Wigg, George


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Parker, J.
Wilcock, Group Captain C. A. B.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Paton, J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Peart, T. F.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Popplewell, E.
Williams, David (Neath)


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Porter, G.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Janner, B.
Proctor, W. T.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsdon)


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Pryde, D. J.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Rankin, John
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Reeves, J.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Reid, Wiliam (Camlachie)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Rhodes, H.
Wyatt, W. L.


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Richards, R.
Yates, V. F.


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Keenan, W.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)



Kenyon, C.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:



Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Holmes.

Division No. 101.]
AYES
[10.24 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Fletcher, Walter (Bury)
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Alport, C. J. M.
Fort, R.
McKibbin, A. J.


Amery, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)


Arbuthnot, John
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Gage, C. H.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)
Gammons, L. D.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Baker, P. A. D.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Markham, Maj. S. F.


Baldwin, A. E.
Glyn, Sir Ralph
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Banks, Col. C.
Godber, J. B.
Marples, A. E.


Barber, A. P. L.
Gough, G. F. H.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Barlow, Sir John
Gower, H. R.
Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)


Baxter, A. B.
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Maude, Angus


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Maudling, R.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Harden, J. R. E.
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Mellor, Sir John


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Molson, A. H. E.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Mcore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Harvey, Air Cdre A V. (Macclesfield)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Birch, Nigel
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Bishop, F. P.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Black, C. W.
Hay, John
Nicholls, Harmar


Boothby, R. J. C.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Bossom, A. C.
Heald, Sir Lionel
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Heath, Edward
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.


Braine, B. R.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Nugent, G. R. H.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Nutting, Anthony


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr G. (Bristol, N. W.)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Odey, G. W.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Orr, Copt L. P. S.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Hollis, M. C.
Orr-Ewing Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Hope, Lord John
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)


Bullard, D. G.
Hopkinson, Henry
Osborne, C.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Partridge, E.


Bullus, Wing-Commander E. E.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Burden, F. F. A.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Butcher, H. W.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Carson, Hon. E.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Pitkington, Capt. R. A.


Cary, Sir Robert
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Pitman, I. J.


Channon, H.
Hurd, A. R.
Powell, J. Enoch


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Profumo, J. D.


Cole, Norman
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Raikes, H. V.


Colegate, W. A.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)
Redmayne, M.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Jennings, R.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Renton, D. L. M.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Roberts, Peter (Henley)


Cranborne, Viscount
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Robertson, Sir David


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Kaberry, D.
Robson-Brown, W.


Crouch, R. F.
Keeling, Sir Edward
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Crowder, John E. (Finchley)
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Roper, Sir Harold


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Lambert, Hon. G.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lambton, Viscount
Russell, R. S.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh S.)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Davidson, Viscountess
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Deedes, W. F.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Leather, E. H. C.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A H.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Leah, P. R. (Petersfield)
Scott, R. Donald


Donner, P. W.
Lindsay, Martin
Scott-Miller, Comdr. R.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Linstead, H. N.
Shepherd, William


Drayson, G. B.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Drewe, C.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Smithere, Peter (Winchester)


Duthie, W. S.
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Low, A. R. W.
Snadden, W. McN.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Soames, Capt. C.


Erroll, F. J.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Fell, A.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Speir, R. M.


Finlay, Graeme
McAdden, S. J.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Fisher, Nigel
McCallum, Major D.
Specs, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard







Stevens, G. P.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Watkinson, H. A.


Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Thorneycroft, R. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster


Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Wellwood, W.


Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Tilney, John
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Storey, S.
Turner, H. F. L.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Turton, R. H.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Wiliams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Sutcliffe, H.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.,
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Vosper, D. F.
Wills, G.


Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Teeling, W.
Walker-Smith, D. C.
Wood, Hon. R.


Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
York, C.


Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)



Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Studholme and Mr. Oakshott.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Edelman, M.
King, Dr. H. M.


Adams, Richard
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Kinley, J.


Albu, A. H.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Ewart, R.
Lewis, Arthur


Awbery, S. S.
Field, W. J.
Lindgren, G. S.


Ayles, W. H.
Fienburgh, W.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Finch, H. J.
Logan, D. G.


Baird, J.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
MacColl, J. E.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Foot, M. M.
McGhee, H. G.


Bartley, P.
Forman, J. C.
McGovern, J.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Freeman, John (Watford)
McInnes, J.


Bence, C. R.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Benn, Wedgwood
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
McLeavy, F.


Benson, G.
Gibson, C. W.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Beswick, F.
Glanville, James
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Gooch, E. G.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Blackburn, F.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Blenkinsop, A.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Blyton, W. R.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Boardman, H.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Grey, C. F.
Manuel, A. C.


Bowden, H. W.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Bowen, E. R.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mayhew, C. P.


Bowles, F. G.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mellish, R. J.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Grimond, J.
Mikardo, Ian


Brockway, A. F.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mitchison, G. R.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Monslow, W.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Moody, A. S.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hamilton, W. W.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hannan, W.
Morley, R.


Burke, W. A.
Hardy, E. A.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hastings, S.
Mort, D. L.


Callaghan, L. J.
Hayman, F. H.
Moyle, A.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Healey, Denis (Leads, S. E.)
Mulley, F. W.


Champion, A. J.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Murray, J. D.


Chapman, W. D.
Herbison, Miss M.
Nelly, W.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Clunie, J.
Hobson, C. R.
O'Brien, T.


Cocks, F. S.
Holman, P.
Oldfield, W. H.


Coldrick, W.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Oliver, G. H.


Collick, P. H.
Holt, A. F.
Orbach, M.


Cook, T. F.
Houghton, Douglas
Oswald, T.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hoy, J. H.
Padley, W. E.


Cove, W. G.
Hubbard, T. F.
Paget, R. T.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Crosland, C. A. R.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pannell, Charles


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Pargiter, G. A.


Daines, P.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Parker, J.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Paton, J.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Pearson, A.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Peart, T. F.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Janner, B.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Porter, G.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jenkins, R. H. (Stetchford)
Proctor, W. T.


Deer, G.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Pryde, D. J.


Delargy, H. J.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Rankin, John


Dodds, N. N.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Reeves, J.


Donnelly, D. L.
Joins, Jack (Rotherham)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Keenan, W.
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Kenyon, C.
Rhodes, H.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Richards, R.







Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
West, D. G.


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Swingler, S. T.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Sylvester, G. O.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Ross, William
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Royle, C.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Wigg, George


Schofield, S. (Barnsley)
Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Wilcock, Group Captain, C. A. B.


Shackleton, E. A. A.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Wilkins, W. A.


Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Short, E. W.
Thurtle, Ernest
Williams, David (Neath)


Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Timmons, J.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Tomney, F.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Simmons, G. J. (Brierley Hill)
Turner-Samuels, M.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Usborne, H. C.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Snow, J. W.
Viant, S. P.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Sorensen, R. W.
Wade, D. W.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Wallace, H. W.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Sparks, J. A.
Watkins, T. E.
Wyatt, W. L.


Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Yates, V. F.


Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Weitzman, D.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)



Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Wells, William (Walsall)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Arthur Allen.

Clause 4.—(MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS.)

Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan: I beg to move, in page 3, line 18, to leave out "replaces," and to insert "takes the place of."
This will be one of the briefest speeches of the evening. The wording of the Amendment is not dictated by any sense of the particular niceties of the English language. It is for a technical purpose. As the Clause is now drafted, it will allow bridges to be fixed only where actual teeth have been extracted, and the purpose of the Amendment is to provide


for those cases where, owing to a congenital fault, the teeth have never actually been there. Therefore, it will allow work to take place which would otherwise not be allowed under the Bill as it stands.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): Comment has been made once or twice during the course of our discussions on the absence of Scottish Ministers from the proceedings today. I think the Committee will agree that I have been sitting here very patiently for the purpose of moving two Government Amendments and replying to any Scottish Amendments which were moved. Unfortunately the Guillotine intervened and those were not reached.
I am glad that the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), is in her place, because I should like to tell her that my right hon. Friend and my other colleagues in the Scottish Office were very grateful for the obvious preference which she showed for us. On the other hand, I should like to say that as a Government we like to see things nicely balanced and we feel that many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite would much prefer to see the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health standing at this Box. My first appearance in this Committee stage is welcome because I have the greatest possible pleasure in accepting the Amendment.

Mr. Powell: In connection with this Amendment, I should like to put to the Minister a point on drafting which relates to almost exactly the same matter. It appears to me that if a dental bridge may replace one tooth only, the wording should be "which takes the place of any tooth or teeth," otherwise it would be necessary for at least two teeth to be replaced by a dental bridge in order that the desired result should follow. I ask my right hon. Friend if he will look at that point in connection with this Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: I beg to move, in page 3, line 23, to leave out subsection (2).
I do not want to detain the Committee for very long. The Amendment is

designed to exempt from payment the people who send children to day nurseries. I move the Amendment because of representations made by the National Society of Children's Nurseries. Anyone who is acquainted with the work of these day nurseries knows full well that the children who attend them are, in the main, children from difficult homes. I will cite the example of the County of Hertford, which will convey the point adequately.
In the County of Hertford, they have 19 nurseries with just over 1,000 children. Of that number, 11 per cent. are illegitimate children, 17 per cent. belong to 168 deserted wives, and there are other such difficult cases—divorced parents, parents suffering from chronic disease, temporary emergency, bad housing, the father being in the Forces, a difficult financial situation at home and that kind of thing. The same thing applies in the county of Kent. There, the nursery of 42 children is likely to be closed. The same thing applies to the London County Council. For the nurseries of the London County Council, I could give a series of figures which show the tremendous hardship which would be caused if payment were demanded from these people.
It has been suggested by the various societies that the power of the local authority to make a charge should be curtailed to a maximum of 2s. a day, but I feel that the sum involved here is minute. The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said that these measures would make a contribution to our balance of payments problem, and apparently the Government intend to ask the parents of these children to contribute towards the solution of that problem by taking from them purchasing power—and they do that in order to help to solve a balance of payments problem which runs into hundreds of millions of pounds. If ever there was cheeseparing, here it is in essence. It is for those reasons, necessarily being brief, that I have moved the Amendment.

Mr. Hastings: I want very strongly to support the Amendment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton), pointed out, this subsection empowers local authorities to make a charge for accommodation in day schools. Up to the present they have had power to make a charge for food. I only know what has happened in London, and I think I know that quite well.
The London County Council charge the mothers 2s. a day, which, of course, is reduced in cases of necessity, for the food of the children. There is very little difficulty in paying that, if the woman has any money at all, because she feels that the food she would have to provide for her child at home would cost very much about that. If, however, we add charges for accommodation, then the mothers will be much less ready to pay. Besides, the people who use these nurseries in London are very carefully "vetted." They are the poorest of the poor—people who would have the greatest difficulty in bringing up their children were it not for these nurseries.
Let me extend the figures which were given. At one, at any rate, of London's nurseries, 28 per cent. of the mothers are women deserted by their husbands; 17 per cent. are unmarried mothers—and it is so important, where it can be aranged, that the unmarried mother should be able to have her child cared for while she goes to work, as she must, to keep herself and her child alive. Then there are the children of mothers in hospitals, and the children whose fathers are in the Forces or in prison, and there are the children of mothers who are widows.
I feel that it would be a great disaster if we asked these very poor people—and remember that they are "vetted" most carefully before they are allowed to use the children's nurseries—to pay for anything else except the food which the children have in the nurseries.

Dr. Summerskill: Let me add my plea to that of my two hon. Friends. I did address myself in some detail to this matter on the Second Reading of the Bill. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look at the figures, some of which have been given by my hon. Friends. I had hoped that the Minister himself would have been here, because I have noticed that he is a little more receptive tonight to some of our arguments. I do not know whether his heart is becoming softer, or whether he is physically exhausted, or whether he finds it more expedient to accept our Amendments. However, this is one which ought not to be rejected immediately. I am hoping that it will be accepted.
There is a curious idea prevailing that the day nurseries are used by women who

are neglectful of their families—by women who have well-paid jobs and who, on the way to their jobs, leave their children at the day nurseries. That, of course, is a complete fallacy. My hon. Friend has pointed out the evidence of the Day Nurseries Association, and there is overwhelming evidence that the day nurseries are used by the mothers of illegitimate children, by women whose husbands have left them, by women whose husbands are disabled, and so on. I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to examine the figures of these day nurseries, and she will be convinced that this is so.
I think it is a little curious that this Bill was thrust upon the Minister of Health by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, many months ago, said he was not going to be manoeuvred out of it. We have watched the poor Minister of Health face up to the barrage of attack from this side, and, frankly, at times I have been quite sorry for him. I find it a little inconsistent in the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who prides himself on the Education Act, 1944, to allow this kind of thing to happen under this Bill, which will inevitably mean that children who are in need of care and attention will be sent to minders. I say that it is inconsistent in him to be proud of educating the children of the country and at the same time to put this handicap in the way of children who are in great need of care and attention. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to think about this very carefully, so that the Government will realise—before, perhaps, it is too late—this to be, as it is, a very stupid and retrograde step.

Commander Galbraith: The right hon. Lady referred to my right hon. Friend's absence from the Chamber at the moment. I think the Committee appreciates the very long hours during which he has stayed here without any break since we commenced the Committee stage today. I do not think the right hon. Lady can have meant her remark in any slighting manner.

Dr. Summerskill: I said he was exhausted.

Commander Galbraith: He has been here all through the day. I do not think he is exhausted, but he certainly requires something to eat.

Dr. Summerskill: We are all exhausted.

Commander Galbraith: I appreciate the great sincerity with which the case for this Amendment has been put forward, but I would point out that local authorities themselves have asked for this charge, and I think that, to a great extent, disposes of what the right hon. Lady said about the Chancellor. The local authorities have good reason for asking for this charge to be imposed, because it places a very considerable burden upon them. The average cost of keeping a child in one of these day nurseries is £2 5s. per week, and in many nurseries the charge is much higher than that. The average amount recovered for meals, on the other hand, is 7s. 6d. per week, so there is very good reason for local authorities asking for permission to make this charge.
There are here two cases, which are quite distinct from each other. There is first the social case, which has been alluded to by all those who have spoken to the Amendment—where there are deserted mothers, unmarried mothers, and widows to be taken into account. In this connection, the charge is purely discretionary and, from my own knowledge of local authorities, I am sure that no local authority would impose a charge on people whose circumstances were such as have been described by the right hon. Lady. Local authorities will consider each case on its merits; I am sure that is what will be done if this Bill is passed.
The other case consists of what I would call industrial cases, where married women, either from choice or because their husband's incomes are small, desire to go out and supplement the family income. There, I think, a reasonable charge may well be made. I see nothing unreasonable in that, remembering all the time that these powers are discretionary. I think it is right that discretion should be granted to local authorities, and I am sorry that on this occasion I must resist the Amendment.

Mr. Hastings: Could the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us approximately how many of those who use these nurseries are married women who go out to work to earn extra money and are not compelled to do so by their economic circumstances?

Mr. James H. Hoy: I must say that the attitude adopted by the hon. and gallant Gentleman is a pretty mean one, and I am sorry that he has had to make a reply of that kind on behalf of the Minister of Health. When he says that it costs £2 5s. a week to keep a child in one of these nurseries, he ought also to bear in mind what it costs to keep a boy or girl in a Borstal institution, or to keep an inmate of one of Her Majesty's prisons. To complain about the niggling expenditure of keeping a child in decent conditions, is mean and contemptible, and I cannot understand why the Parliamentary Secretary herself does not rise and say that at least the Government are prepared to have another look at this Amendment before rejecting it out of hand.

10.0 p.m.

Mrs. Freda Corbet: I realise that there is a good deal of force in what the Minister has said. From his point of view and that of the council administering, there is, no doubt, the case of the woman who goes out to work to supplement the rather small income of her husband. On occasion it does happen that the authority is hard put to decide whether or not, when the joint income perhaps amounts to £8, £9 or £10 a week, they should admit the child.
If they are able to make a charge, I do not think that the problem arises so harshly, and, therefore, I would say myself that there is a case for this and would not look askance at it. What I am afraid of—and I hope that the Minister may be able to give us some satisfaction—is that there will be authorities who will take advantage of this and, if the Minister will give an assurance that he will watch the position very carefully, I should be grateful.

Mr. Hamilton: I wonder if the Joint Under-Secretary could tell us which local authorities agreed to this charge of £2 5s. I would draw his attention to the figures, particularly in Kent. The Joint-Under-Secretary made great play upon the social problems involved here and the social cases. I do not know how he distinguishes the social cases from others, because it seems to me, on analysing these figures, that they are all social problems.
I believe that every local authority takes great care that the children who, go to these nurseries are, by and large,


the product of social problems. The Kent nursery that is likely to be closed now has in it 42 children. In the case of three of these children, the mother has died, and in respect of 21, the parents are divorced or separated through the courts. The mothers of two of the children are widows, there are 14 whose mothers are unmarried and two whose mothers are crippled. They are all social cases.
If we analyse the cases in the 19 nurseries in the County of Hertford, we find exactly the same position. They are all social problems, and for the Joint Under-Secretary to try and distinguish between cases which are social problems and others seems to me to be ridiculous. I would also ask him the total saving that is supposed to be obtained by this mean Measure. Lastly, how many of the parents of these children, in the cases which I have cited, will be able to pay £2 5s.? The Joint Under-Secretary should know very well—we know very well on this side of the Committee—which local authorities will charge up to the hilt. It is the Tory Government passing the buck to the Tory local authorities.

Mr. Jack Jones: I have listened with great care to the debate. I want to put a different slant on what has been said tonight, on the effect of these charges to be imposed on these unfortunate people. Every week Her Majesty's Government have been asking for more production, and we have been told that without it we are sunk. For unmarried women, married women and widows these charges will mean a complete disincentive to go out to work.
Why do the Government expect that people will be persuaded to go to work when they know that as a result they will have a charge placed upon them which bears no comparison to what they will get if they go to the National Assistance Board. I suggest that the Government are doing the very thing they are asking the country not to do. This is creating a disincentive for married women, unmarried mothers and other unfortunate women to go to work, and the loss of production together with the expenditure of the National Assistance Board will more than outweigh the miserable pittance that will be saved.

Mr. Rankin: I wish to put a question to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. Earlier I tried to emphasise that there were certain fundamental differences between the Scottish and the English Acts. Unfortunately, the Guillotine descended on my innocent head and I was unable to finish what I had to say. However, I think that we might have a little more information about the sum of £2 5s. Is that a United Kingdom figure? I should like to be told what the English figure is and what the Scottish figure is. As the Joint Under-Secretary knows, there is a wide difference in the use of day nurseries between England and Scotland, and that information would be useful.

Commander Galbraith: I very gladly give the assurance for which the hon. Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) asked.

Mr. Baird: We want much more than that.

Commander Galbraith: The situation will be carefully watched. There is some misapprehension on the part of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton). It is not a question of a charge of £2 5s. That is the average cost over the whole of the United Kingdom to keep a child in one of these nurseries.

Mr. Hamilton: Does not the Clause give local authorities full authority to charge the maximum of £2 5s.?

Commander Galbraith: It leaves the matter at the discretion of local authorities. The hon. Member for Fife, West, told us of the nursery in Kent accommodating 42 children that was to be closed down. He said very considerable hardship would result. We should all regret that, but surely the discretion allowed in the Clause to the local authority might well have allowed that nursery school to be kept open. I emphasise once more that the three local authorities associations have asked to be given this discretionary power.
The hon. Gentleman also asked what the total saving was. The saving is estimated at £500,000 in regard to the national Exchequer and £500,000 in regard to the rates.
The hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) knows that originally two Acts were introduced, one for Scotland and the other for England. By reason of the


organisation in Scotland, particularly in regard to the teaching hospitals, we desired to have something different from the English Measure. However, since that date two further Acts have been passed, one in 1949 and the other in 1951, and I cannot remember that he or any of his colleagues took any exception whatsoever to Scotland being included in a United Kingdom Measure. So we are following precedent. When charges are applied to the whole of the United Kingdom, there is no reason whatsoever why we should have a separate Measure for Scotland.

Mr. Hamilton: On what basis does the hon. and gallant Gentleman make the calculation for his saving, if it is, as he says, a purely discretionary power in the hands of the local authorities?

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6.—(SUPPLEMENTARY AND CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS.)

Mr. Hastings: I beg to move, in page 4, line 27, to leave out "paid into the Exchequer and to insert:
retained and used for the purposes of the National Health Service Act, 1946.
This Amendment seeks to ensure that money collected from patients shall be ploughed back into the National Health Service. I do not suggest that patients who pay any of these charges will do so willingly, but I do suggest that they will pay them less unwillingly if they know that they are to be used for the improvement of the Health Service.

Dr. Broughton: When we examined Clause 1 of this Bill, it was shown that money was to be extracted from cripples, mothers, the poor and the weak. The examination of Clause 2 has shown that money is to be extracted from people suffering from toothache. Clause 4 has shown that money is to be taken from the mothers of illegitimate children.

Because we cannot persuade the Government to drop the Bill, we would like this money to be used for a good purpose.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I want to support my hon. Friends, although within the time available—

It being Twenty-four Minutes to Eleven o'Clock. The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Order, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Questions necessary to bring the Proceedings in Committee to a conclusion.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes 290; Noes, 272.

Division No. 102.]
AYES
[10.37 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Butcher, H. W.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Bennett, William (Woodside)
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)


Alport, C. J. M.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Carson, Hon. E.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Birch, Nigel
Cary, Sir Robert


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Bishop, F. P.
Channon, H.


Arbuthnot, John
Black, C. W.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Boothby, R. J. G.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Bossom, A. C.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.


Baker, P. A. D.
Boyle, Sir Edward
Cole, Norman


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Colegate, W. A.


Baldwin, A. E.
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.


Banks, Col. C.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert


Barber, A. P. L.
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Cooper-Key, E. M.


Barlow, Sir John
Brooman-White, R. C.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)


Baxter, A. B.
Browne, Jack (Govan)
Cranborne, Viscount


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Bullard, D. G.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Bullock, Capt. M.
Crouch, R. F.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Bullus, Wing-Commander, E. E.
Crowder, John E. (Finchley)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Burden, F. F. A.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)




Cuthbert, W. N.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Davidson, Viscountess
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Profumo, J. D.


Deedes, W. F.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Raikes, H. V.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Keeling, Sir Edward
Rayner, Brig. R.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Redmayne, E.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Donner, P. W.
Lambton, Viscount
Renton, D. L. M.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Drayson, G. B.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Robertson, Sir David


Duthie, W. S.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Leather, E. H. C.
Robson-Brown, W.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Erroll, F. J.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Roper, Sir Harold


Fell, A.
Lindsay, Martin
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Finlay, Graeme
Linstead, H. N.
Russell, R. S.


Fisher, Nigel
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Fletcher, Walter (Bury)
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Low, A. R. W.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Fort, R.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Scott, R. Donald


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
McAdden, S. J.
Shepherd, William


Gage, C. H.
McCallum, Major D.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Macdonad, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Gammans, L. D.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
McKibbin, A. J.
Snadden, W. McN.


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Soames, Capt. C.


Glyn, Sir Ralph
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Godber, J. B.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Speir, R. M.


Gough, C. F. H.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Gower, H. R.
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Gridley, Sir Arnold
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Stevens, G. P.


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Harden, J. R. E.
Markham, Major S. F.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hare, Hon. J. H.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Marples, A. E.
Storey, S.


Harm, Reader (Heston)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Maude, Angus
Studholme, H. G.



Maudling, R.
Sutcliffe, H.


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Hay, John
Mellor, Sir John
Teeling, W.


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Molson, A. H. E.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Heald, Sir Lionel
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Heath, Edward
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Higgs, J. M. C.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nicholls, Harmar
Tilney, John


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Turner, H. F. L.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Turton, R. H.


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Hollis, M. C.
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Vosper, D. F.


Hope, Lord John
Nutting, Anthony
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Hopkinson, Henry
Oakshott, H. D.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Odey, G. W.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Watkinson, H. A.


Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Wellwood, W.


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
While, Baker (Canterbury)


Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Osborne, C.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Hurd, A. R.
Partridge, E.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Wills, G.


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Wood, Hon. R.


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
York, C.


Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)
Pitman, I. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jennings, R.
Powell, J. Enoch
Mr. Drewe and Mr. Kaberry.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.


Adams, Richard
Awbery, S. S.
Bence, C. R.


Aibu, A. H.
Ayles, W. H.
Bunn, Wedgwood


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Bacon, Miss Alice
Benson, G.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Baird, J.
Beswick, F.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Bartley, P.
Blackburn, F.







Blenkinsop, A.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Blyton, W. R.
Herbison, Miss M.
Popplewell, E.


Boardman, H.
Hewitson, Capt M.
Porter, G.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hobson, C. R.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Bowden, H. W.
Holman, P.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Bowen, E. R.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Proctor, W. T.


Bowles, F. G.
Holt, A. F.
Pryde, D. J.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Houghton, Douglas
Rankin, John


Brockway, A. F.
Hoy, J. H.
Reeves, J.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hubbard, T. F.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Rhodes, H.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Richards, R.


Burke, W. A.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Callaghan, L. J.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Ross, William


Champion, A. J.
Janner, B.
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)


Chapman, W. D.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Cocks, F. S.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Coldrick, W.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Short, E. W.


Collick, P. H.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Cook, T. F.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Corbel, Mrs. Freda
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Cove, W. G.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Keenan, W.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Crosland, C. A. R.
Kenyon, C.
Snow, J. W.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
King, Dr. H. M.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Daines, P.
Kinley, J.
Sparks, J. A.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Lewis, Arthur
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Davies, Harold (Leeds)
Lindgren, G. S.
Swingler, S. T.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Logan, D. G.
Sylvester, G. O.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
MacColl, J. E.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Deer, G.
McGhee, H. G.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Delargy, H. J.
McGovern, J.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Dodds, N. N.
McInnes, J.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Donnelly, D. L.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Driberg, T. E. N.
McLeavy, F.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Thurtle, Ernest


Edelman, M.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Timmons, J.


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Tomney, F.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfiell, E.)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Usborne, H. C.


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Manuel, A. C.
Viant, S. P.


Ewart, R.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Wade, D. W.


Field, W. J.
Mayhew, C. P.
Wallace, H. W.


Fienburgh, W.
Mellish, R. J.
Watkins, T. E.


Finch, H. J.
Mikardo, Ian
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mitchison, G. R.
Weitzman, D.


Foot, M. M.
Monslow, W.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Forman, J. C.
Moody, A. S.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Freeman, John (Watford)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
West, D. G.


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Morley, R.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Gibson, C. W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Glanville, James
Mort, D. L.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Gooch, E. G.
Moyle, A.
Wigg, George


Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mulley, F. W.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Murray, J. D.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)
Nally, W.
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Williams, David (Neath)


Grey, C. F.
O'Brien, T.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Oldfield, W. H.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Orbach, M.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Grimond, J.
Oswald, T.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Padley, W. E.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Paget, R. T.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hamilton, W. W.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Wyatt, W. L.


Hannan, W.
Pannell, Charles
Yates, V. F.


Hardy, E. A.
Pargiter, G. A.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Parker, J.



Hastings, S.
Paton, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hayman, F. H.
Pearson, A.
Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Royle.


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)
Peart, T. F.



Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8.—(SHORT TITLE, CITATION, COMMENCEMENT, AND EXTENT.)

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 288; Noes, 272.

Division No. 103.]
AYES
[10.47 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Duthie, W. S.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)


Alport, C. J. M.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Linstead, H. N.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Erroll, F. J.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Fell, A.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Arbuthnot, John
Finlay, Graeme
Longden, Gilbert (Horse, S. W.)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Fisher, Nigel
Low, A. R. W.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Fletcher, Walter (Bury)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Baker, P. A. D.
Fort, R.
McAdden, S. J.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
McCallum, Major D.


Baldwin, A. E.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Banks, Col. C.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)


Barber, A. P. L.
Gage, C. H.
Mackeson, Brig, H. R.


Barlow, Sir John
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
McKibbin, A. J.


Baxter, A. B.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Beach, Maj. Hicks.
Gammans, L. D.
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Garner-Evans, E. H.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Godber, J. B.
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Gough, C. F. H.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Gower, H. R.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Markham, Major S. F.


Birch, Nigel
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Bishop, F. P.
Harden, J. R. E.
Marples, A E.


Black, C. W.
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)


Bossom, A. C.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maude, Angus


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maudling, R.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Brains, B. R.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Mellor, Sir John


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)
Hay, John
Molson, A. H. E.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Heald, Sir Lionel
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas


Brooman-White, R. C.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Higgs, J. M. C.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Bullard, D. G.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nicholls, Harmar


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Bollus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Burden, F. F. A.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Butcher, H. W.
Hollis, M. C.
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Carson, Hon. E.
Hope, Lord John
Nutting, Anthony


Cary, Sir Robert
Hopkinson, Henry
Oakshott, H. D.


Channan, H.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Odey, G. W.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Cole, Norman
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Osborne, C.


Colegate, W. A.
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Partridge, E.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hurd, A. R.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Cranborne, Viscount
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Pitman, I. J.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)
Powell, J. Enoch


Crouch, R. F.
Jennings, R.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Crowder, John E. (Finchley)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Prefumo, J. D.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Raikes, H. V.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Davidson, Viscountess
Kaberry, D.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Deedes, W. F.
Keeling, Sir Edward
Renton, D. L. M.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Roberts, Peter (Healey)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Robertson, Sir David


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Lambton, Viscount
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Donner, P. W.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Robson-Brown, W.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Drayson, G. B.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Roper, Sir Harold


Drewe, C.
Leather, E. H. C.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard




Russell, R. S.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Storey, S.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Scott, R. Donald
Studholme, H. G.
Watkinson, H. A.


Scott-Miller, Comdr. R.
Sutcliffe, H.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Shepherd, William
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Wellwood, W.


Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Teeling, W.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Snadden, W. McN.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Soames, Capt. C.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Wills, G.


Spearman, A. C. M.
Thorneycroft, R. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Speir, R. M.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Wood, Hon. R.


Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Tilney, John
York, C.


Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Turner, H. F. L.



Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Turton, R. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Stevens, G. P.
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Mr. Vosper and Mr. Redmayne.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Delargy, H. J.
Janner, B.


Adams, Richard
Dodds, N. N.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Albu, A. H.
Donnelly, D. L.
Jeger, George (Goole)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Driberg, T. E. N.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Edelman, M.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)


Awbery, S. S.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Ayles, W. H.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Keenan, W.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Kenyon, C.


Baird, J.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Ewart, R.
King, Dr. H. M.


Bartley, P.
Field, W. J.
Kinley, J.


Ballenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Fienburgh, W.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Bence, C. R.
Finch, H. J.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Benn, Wedgwood
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Benson, G.
Foot, M. M.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Beswick, F.
Forman, J. C.
Lewis, Arthur


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Freeman, John (Watford)
Lindgren, G. S.


Blackburn, F.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Logan, D. G.


Blenkinsop, A.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
MacColl, J. E.


Blyton, W. R.
Gibson, C. W.
McGhee, H. G.


Boardman, H.
Glanville, James
McGovern, J.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Gooch, E. G.
McInnes, J.


Bowden, H. W.
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Bowen, E. R.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
McLeavy, F.


Bowles, F. G.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Brockway, A. F.
Grey, C. F.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mainwaring, W. H.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Grimond, J.
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Burke, W. A.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Manuel, A. C.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Mayhew, C. P.


Callaghan, L. J.
Hamilton, W. W.
Mellish, R. J.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hannan, W.
Mikardo, Ian


Champion, A. J.
Hardy, E. A.
Mitchison, G. R.


Chapman, W. D.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Monslow, W.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hastings, S.
Moody, A. S.


Cooks, F. S.
Hayman, F. H.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.


Coldrick, W.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)
Morley, R.


Collick, P. H.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Cook, T. F.
Herbison, Miss M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Carbet, Mrs. Freda
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Mort, D. L.


Cove, W. G.
Hobson, C. R.
Moyle, A.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Holman, P.
Mulley, F. W.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Murray, J. D.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Holt, A. F.
Nally, W.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Houghton, Douglas
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Daines, P.
Hoy, J. H.
O'Brien, T.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hubbard, T. F.
Oldfield, W. H.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Oliver, G. H.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Orbach, M.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Oswald, T.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Padley, W. E.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Paget, R. T.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Deer, G.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pannell, Charles







Pargiter, G. A.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Watkins, T. E.


Parker, J.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Paton, J.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Weitzman, D.


Pearson, A.
Snow, J. W.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Peart, T. F.
Sorensen, R. W.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Plummer, Sir Leslie
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
West, D. G.


Popplewell, E.
Sparks, J. A.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Porter, G.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Proctor, W. T.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Wigg, George


Pryde, D. J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Wilcock, Group Captain C. A. B.


Rankin, John
Swingler, S. T.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Reeves, J.
Sylvester, G. O.
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Williams, David (Neath)


Reid, William (Camlachie)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Rhodes, H.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Richards, R.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Thurtle, Ernest
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Ross, William
Timmons, J.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Schofield, S. (Barnsley)
Tomney, F.
Wyatt, W. L.


Shackleton, E. A. A.
Turner-Samuels, M.
Yates, V. F.


Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Usborne, H. C.



Short, E. W.
Viant, S. P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Wade, D. W.
Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Royle.


Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Wallace, H. W.

New Clause.—(POWER TO REMIT CHARGES FOR DENTURES SUPPLIED BY TEACHING HOSPITALS.)

(1) If the Minister of Health or the Secretary of State, as the case may be, is satisfied, after consultation with the university associated with any hospital providing facilities for clinical dental teaching, that it is expedient in the interests of dental training or education that the charges imposed by section one of the National Health Service Act, 1951, should be remitted in the case of dental services provided at that hospital, either generally or subject to limitations or conditions, he may by order make provision for that purpose.

(2) Any order made under this section may be revoked or varied by a subsequent order made by the said Minister or the Secretary of State, as the case may be, after such consultation as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section.

(3) Any power to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.—[Mr. J. Stuart.]

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

Whereupon The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report the Bill, as amended, to the House, pursuant to Order.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 90.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Butcher.]

Orders of the Day — QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE (LORD MANCROFT'S SPEECH)

11.0 p.m.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: I want to raise a point of order and to seek the guidance of the Chair on a matter which has just been brought to my attention, and which I am bringing to your notice, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, at the earliest opportunity. It is a question of a paragraph in this evening's edition of the "Star" newspaper. The paragraph is a grave reflection upon the dignity of this House and certain of its Members. The paragraph is headed,
Bessie and the other girls—by a Peer.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): Is the hon. Lady raising a question of Privilege?

Mrs. Castle: No, I am seeking your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because I want your protection, and the protection of all hon. Members of this House. [Interruption.] I cannot speak if hon. Members opposite will not keep quiet. I want the protection of hon. Members against the vulgarity of a comment of this kind. I would ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to listen to this comment, which I will read. The paragraph goes on:
Several Conservative M.P.s, fresh (or faded) from their all-night sitting, were on the platform at the annual meeting of the Primrose League at Caxton Hall, Westminster, today. Lord Mancroft, Chancellor of the League, turning to some of the M.P.s, said, 'Unlike them, I am not paid a thousand a year for larking about in the division lobbies at night


with Bessie Braddock and the rest of the girls; I have to earn my living'.
I am sure, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you will agree that this is an affront to the dignity, not only of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), but, indeed, to all the women Members of this House and, not least, to the male Members of this House. What protection is there against this kind of affront to the dignity, not only of hon. Members, but of this important assembly? We hon. Members of this House have always been led to believe that it was incumbent upon us to show respect in our references to activities in another place, and I submit that it is a very serious matter when a Member of that other place tries with such frivolity to demean the status of our assembly here.
This is a demonstration of low vulgarity and, at its worst, might involve the question of a breach of Privilege. Might I suggest that there is a prima facie case?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Lady should raise the matter after Prayers to-morrow morning as a prima facie case of breach of Privilege.

Mrs. Castle: I always understood that such a matter had to be raised at the earliest possible opportunity, and that is why I have raised it tonight.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That does not bar the hon. Lady from raising the point tomorrow. She may do that, even although she has raised it tonight. She is fully protected.

Orders of the Day — AFRICAN FARMERS' IMPROVEMENT FUND

11.5 p.m.

Mr. John Hynd: I want to raise tonight a matter on which I have addressed a number of Questions to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, both of the present and the previous Governments, namely, the question of the North Rhodesian African Farmers' Improvement Fund, its administration, its purposes and its prospects. I am not raising the matter in any spirit of criticism—at least, in the first instance—but rather for the purposes of obtaining more information than it has been possible to obtain by the procedure of Parliamentary Question and answer.
I presume that the Minister is as aware as I am that there is a great deal of disquiet and distrust and, maybe, a good deal of misunderstanding amongst Africans in these territories about the prospects and management of this type of fund, which operates in other territories also. Therefore, there is a great need for the maximum clarification and publicity amongst Africans in order that any misunderstandings may be removed.
In regard to the fund, I should like, first, to have some further information than I have so far received about the need for the large balances that are held in the fund and about the need for the large contributions that are still required from year to year from the African farmers in relation to these very considerable balances.
The fund is of comparatively recent date. It arose from the old Maize Control Board, whose funds were transferred to the Native Areas (Controlled Areas) Fund in 1944 for the purposes, mainly, of soil conservation and of encouraging African farmers in improved methods of farming. In January, 1949, it was renamed the African Farmers' Improvement Fund.
So far as I have been able to ascertain from the information supplied to me by the Minister, its main use so far has been for purchasing seeds and various items of equipment, for soil conservation, which covers quite a number of activities, for bonuses to the African farmers who show signs of improving their methods, and for various loans, to co-operatives and so on.
In regard to the balances, I was told by the previous Minister that the balance at 1st January, 1949, was £149,461, out of which the total amount of bonuses paid to the African farmers was only £4,607. The total paid for soil conservation during that year was £4,313; so that there was a total expenditure of £8,921 out of a balance of £149,461. In 1950, the balance was still about the same—£140,000. On 1st January, 1951, it had gone up to £158,000, and the expenditure had gone up to £19,000.
When I wrote to the Secretary of State for the Colonies in the previous Government, I obtained certain information about the expenditure in 1950, which had not then quite finished. Amongst the items of expenditure that were


anticipated was an interest-bearing loan of £10,000 to start co-operatives amongst the contributors to the fund, for the sole use of the contributors.
On examining the balance sheet for 1950, I find that that £10,000 is not shown and that the only co-operative loan was one of £1,500 to the Tonga Plateau Cooperative, of which £1,200 was repaid within that year. I should like to know what has happened to the original proposal to loan £10,000 for co-operative development, and what steps are being taken still further to extend what seems to me to be the most advantageous method of encouraging effective farming methods amongst the large number of small farmers in that type of area.
There are one or two further questions I wish to ask. First of all, who controls the expenditure of this fund? Are there sufficient African representatives on the control? What methods are used for deciding the expenditure of the fund, and how far is this decided in mutual consultation between the African and European farmers and the Colonial Administration? Is the Minister satisfied, in view of the small amounts that are paid annually from the fund so far—and I appreciate it is only in its infancy—that the staff for supervisory purposes is sufficient, or whether a sufficient staff is being secured for the purposes?
On the question of encouraging co-operatives, I understand that there is a co-operative training school, the total attendance of which is about 12 students per year. How far is the fund being used, or can it be used, to assist the development of that school in order, in turn, to assist the development of agricultural co-operatives?
I should also be interested to know how the prices for the maize are fixed, and by whom; and why it is that there is such a differentiation between the prices in the various areas. Why is such a large contribution as 9s. per bag taken from the African farmer towards this fund, particularly when the average production, as I believe, is about four bags per acre, which means they are paying 36s. per acre towards the fund? And why the difference in the prices ruling in the different areas? This again is no criticism. I just do not know.
I understand that in the maize control area the European farmer is paid 35s. per bag and the African 26s., so the African pays 9s. towards the fund. In the Eastern Province the price is 13s. 6d., of which, I gather, only 1s. 6d. goes to the fund. In the Northern Province it is 28s., so there is a difference between 26s., 13s. 6d. and 28s. in the various areas. It may be that in the Eastern Province the main reason, if not the only reason, is that this is a deficit area, which means that by the time they import maize to make up the balance necessary for the population—at a price, I gather, estimated at about 45s. per bag. taking transport into account—the average for the Province comes to somewhere near 26s. and 35s. in the maize control area. It would be interesting to know the full reason.
I think we might just as well state frankly what it is the Africans fear about this. It is commonly said amongst the Africans—and I have ample correspondence on the point over a long period—that this low price in the Eastern Province is fixed deliberately in order to provide the European farmers with cheap food for their workers and cheap labour for their farms.
It is also asserted—and this is probably one of the things that gives colour to that idea—that the Member for Agriculture and National Resources is himself a tobacco farmer, who is elected only by European farmers. I do not know whether this is true, but if it is, is it wise that that should be the case? Is it difficult to understand, if that is the case, that there must be a certain amount of suspicion amongst the African farmers about these regulations and prices? What steps does the Minister take, if that is the case, to make sure that the Africans have that kind of fear removed from their minds?
My final point is on the production of tobacco in this territory, which is linked with the same question. I understand that there are two main kinds of tobacco produced in this territory. Flue-cured or fire-cured, produced by the Europeans, and a poorer quality tobacco, Burley, produced by the Africans. I understand that the tobacco is sold through some kind of auction, which refuses to handle any but the cheaper type of tobacco from the Africans. Are they public auctions? And why do they refuse to handle any


better tobacco from Africans? Naturally, this again gives rise to the feeling among Africans that the prohibition is vindictive on the part of European tobacco growers, and, if that is their feeling, we must clear their minds if we can.
In Southern Rhodesia, it is quite clear that the Africans are prohibited from producing tobacco at all, so that it is not surprising that suspicions are roused in Northern Rhodesia when Africans are allowed only to produce cheaper tobacco. If there is a substantial reason for this distinction, it would be useful to know what it is. If it is suggested that the African farmer is incapable of producing better tobacco, there are many who are in a position to judge who disagree. But, if that should be the argument, is not this precisely the kind of activity that could be usefully pursued with the aid of the Betterment Fund, in order to encourage and help the African farmer to produce the better type?
I raise these points, not in a spirit of criticism, but because they are questions that have been raised with me and it is desirable that they should be cleared up. While this lack of understanding exists in these territories, there is a lack of co-operation; and while there is a lack of co-operation we shall obviously not be able to get the best administration of our Colonial Territories in the direction we all desire—to bring the Africans to the point where they will be able to manage their own affairs.

11.17 p.m.

The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): Those of us present in the House this evening will be glad the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) has raised this most important subject. It is an important subject, affecting the welfare and progress of a large number of our fellow citizens in Central Africa.
I know the hon. Member will not expect me to be over-careful of his feelings in any observations I make, because tonight he has shown a readiness to lend himself to suggestions and charges that may be made outside this House, without formally agreeing with them. He has, in fact, been ready to wound but afraid to strike. It is most important that I should quite frankly deal definitely not only with the facts of the hon. Member's speech but

with the innuendoes to which he has also committed himself.

Mr. Hynd: Is it in order for a Minister to charge a Member with innuendo for conveying suggestions that have been made to him by constituents?

Mr. Speaker: It is ordinarily wise to avoid imputations of any kind.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I hope that I shall justify what I say in my argument—to which I most fervently cling—that the suggestion that there has been any improper or unfair use of the undoubted powers that lie in the hands of the Government of Northern Rhodesia is completely untrue.
The hon. Member has raised the question of maize and tobacco prices and production in Northern Rhodesia, and, running through all he has said, there has been a suggestion that agricultural policy in Northern Rhodesia is designed to benefit the European farmer at the expense of the African.
The hon. Member has broadly hinted that as the Member for Agriculture and Natural Resources in Northern Rhodesia is himself elected by Europeans and is a tobacco grower, he is not in a position to tender unbiassed advice or give unbiassed decisions. I do not say the hon. Member himself accepted that view, but he has said that it is felt outside. I see from my copy of "Dod" that the hon. Member is himself a railway clerk and a member of the General Medical Council. When matters affecting both those important bodies are before the House, or outside it, I would not lend myself to the view that he was not qualified to give his advice on these two great subjects in an unbiassed way. I hope that he will concede the same of Mr. Beckett, the Member for Agriculture and Natural Resources in Northern Rhodesia, on whom now fall difficult and important decisions which have to be reached in that territory.
The whole purpose of the agricultural policy in Northern Rhodesia is to make Northern Rhodesia self-supporting in regard to foodstuffs. All the time we are conscious of the need, in order to secure that, both to raise the standard of cultivation among the Africans in Northern Rhodesia and firmly to establish, and give illustrations of, our belief


in the principle of partnership among all races in Northern Rhodesia.
The hon. Member suggested that as the Member for Agricultural and Natural Resources was a tobacco grower some people might feel that his advice had not always been wholly unbiassed. I should like to make plain that we in this House who have responsibility for a large area of the British Colonial Territories are always doing our utmost to encourage the best of our fellow-citizens overseas to pay their part in the economic, social, and political development in the Colonies in which they live. If those who are ready to do this find themselves involved in imputations against their integrity, it will be the more difficult to get the right sort of people to take an active part in the development of the Colonies.
The Member for Agricultural and Natural Resources in Northern Rhodesia was appointed in January, 1949, and for the last two years during which we had a Socialist Government in power in the U.K. he has been the Member in Northern Rhodesia. The price fixed in the Eastern Province, which figured largely in the suggestions of the hon. Gentleman, is not a matter for the Member for Agriculture. Price fixing is in the hands of the Economic Secretary, and, eventually, in the hands of the Executive Council as a whole. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that it was during the period of his own Party that there was given to the Executive Council very considerably increased power in Northern Rhodesia. So that if all the unofficial and elected members of the Executive Council made a recommendation to the Governor, unless the Governor were prepared to invoke his reserve powers, he agreed to accept that recommendation.
I think that the more we look at the story of what has happened during the last few years the more we are entitled to say that the Member for Agriculture, confronted with great difficulties, has played a part in the development of his country which does him the greatest credit and deserves the fullest confidence from both sides of this House.
Let me go into the detail of one or two of the charges which the hon. Member has made. He has spoken of the difference between the fixed prices for maize in the line of rail area and in the

Northern and Eastern Provinces. I think he realises that the great need is to make Northern Rhodesia self-sufficient in foodstuffs. That being so, the main concentration must be on encouraging food production in that part of the territory most likely to give maximum and quickest results. That territory is along the line of rail for some 25 or 30 miles on either side. So the price fixed there has been deliberately designed to encourage the maximum production of maize.
The price is exactly the same for Europeans and Africans, 37s. for a bag of 200 lb. There is a bonus paid directly to the European grower of 2s. a bag, and there will be a bonus of 2s. paid to the African grower, though whether it is to be paid directly to him or to the African Improvement Fund is a matter which is now being considered by the Executive Council on which African interests are represented.
As to the price in the Northern Province, it is true that it is considerably less, but it is not as low as the hon. Gentleman suggested. The price is 27s. in some districts and 24s. in others. The justification for that, which appears to us to be sensible, is that maize in that Province is not a staple crop and the soil is not suitable for its production. In the Eastern Province, to which the hon. Gentleman also referred, the price paid is governed largely by questions of geography and transport. In 1951 it was 15s. a bag, but adding the cost of transport to that production delivered at Port Jameson, where it would have to be marketed, it would have cost 32s. a bag and in the present year 36s. a bag. If the same bag of maize had been taken to Lusaka, which is the nearest railway for that Province, it would have cost 52s. a bag.
The purpose of the Administration has been to encourage the production of maize in the Territory most likely to yield the maximum and the quickest return. We do not want to encourage Africans in that part of the Territory to grow crops, which will not yield them a good return. We want to encourage them to grow cash crops for export where the comparatively high price will cover the exceptionally high transport cost of that district.
The next thing the hon. Gentleman suggested was that the difference


between what is paid for the crop and what the African actually gets is too high. If I might detain the House for a moment with a comparison of these figures, the price paid is 37s. 0d. plus bonus, but the actual cash payment to the African will be 25s. 3d., leaving a difference of 11 s. 9d. between what his crop fetches and what he himself receives. Where does the difference go?
It goes in two forms. Some 3s. 9d. a bag goes towards the cost of the Maize Control Board, which is a marketing board. The difference, 8s. 0d. a bag, is paid to the African Farming Improvement Fund, which is steadily raising the standard of production among all the Africans in that district. It is helping the Africans by financing various soil conservation schemes, the construction of small dams, access roads, and helps of that kind, the provision of subsidised fertilisers, carts, and other accessories.
The bonus that is being paid to the Africans in that Territory is paid according to the standard of cultivation that the African shows. If he gives cultivation which is first-class in the view of the local agricultural officers, he gets in the end exactly the same return as the European. The registered Africans year by year are steadily increasing in number, and they are taking advantage of this opportunity given to them to receive the best possible price for their product.
The hon. Gentleman—I hope he is staying to hear the reply—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursaunt to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Half-past Eleven o'Clock.